Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Postal Deliveries, Westminster

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General what is the average time between the posting of a letter in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and its delivery in Westminster; and how this figure compares with that in 1939.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): Except on Saturdays, letters for Westminster posted in time for the first collection at Kingston-upon-Thames should be delivered on the same day. Later postings should connect with the first delivery on the next working day. In 1939 one could post about five hours later than now for delivery on the same day.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for those figures, may I ask him whether he can say on what size of statistical specimen they were based?

Mr. Slater: I am very sorry but I cannot give that information to the hon. Gentleman. I will obtain it and send it to him.

Advertising Campaign

Mr. Dance: asked the Postmaster-General what is the cost so far of the advertising campaign, "Someone somewhere would like a letter from you."

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): The campaign ran from May, 1963, to February, 1965, at a total cost of about £467,000.

Mr. Dance: That is satisfactory because it is not a very high figure, but is

the Postmaster-General aware that there is general public feeling that it is outrageous that the Post Office should recently have increased its charges by between 30 and 50 per cent. to the general public when they themselves are being called upon—as we heard yesterday, it may be enforced—to endure a prices and wages freeze? What has the Postmaster-General to say to justify this?

Mr. Short: The supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with the Question. The campaign was started by the Conservative Government and ran for 18 months under them, and it has run for four months under the present Government.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Despite the increased costs, does the advertisement warn the public that they will be lucky if their letters are delivered first post next morning and that some of them may take two days?

Mr. Short: More than 92 per cent. of the 35 million letters posted each day are delivered next morning.

Special Stamp (Motor Industry)

Mr. Grieve: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of dissatisfaction in the motor industry with the free advertisement given to the British Motor Corporation and Jaguar company by the issue of the postage stamp showing three Mini cars and an E-type Jaguar; and what steps he proposes to avoid unfair discrimination of this kind in future.

Mr. Short: I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the design of this stamp, although I have received a number of representations from the agents of one particular manufacturer. It is difficult to avoid depicting products of a particular firm when illustrating such subjects as technology, but I will bear the hon. and learned Gentleman's views in mind in connection with future issues.

Mr. Grieve: But surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it is not a question of design that is at issue here but a question of the use of Her Majesty's postage to advertise certain products. On what basis were these cars chosen and why, at any rate in the case of the second car, was not a vehicle which had


received the Queen's Award for Industry chosen instead? Surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is invidious to use the post for advertising in this way?

Mr. Short: What we were trying to do was to advertise the excellence of British technology. Motor car manufacture and export performance is a very important element in that. The alternative would have been an identikit motor car and I do not think that anyone would have cared for that.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman put the Severn Bridge on one of his stamps?

Mr. Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a very good case for an issue on contemporary bridges—including not only the Severn but the Forth and the Tay and others. One of the things for which this generation will be remembered is the excellent bridges we are building.

Procurement Policy

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Postmaster-General if he will use the purchasing power of the General Post Office to promote more co-operation between the computer and telephone equipment industries.

Mr. Short: I am reviewing the procurement policy of the Post Office and will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Air Compressors (Purchase)

Mr. Allason: asked the Postmaster-General why the Post Office has ordered air compressors fitted with Japanese engines; and whether he will in future give preference to British equipment.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The purchase of these compressors followed competitive tendering by British firms all of which, of their accord, proposed to incorporate foreign engines. My right hon. Friend cannot reject all British equipment that includes foreign components.

Mr. Allason: Is this not rather a lame excuse? Would the hon. Gentleman look again at the procurement arrangements and ensure that British equipment and engines are used whenever possible rather than accept lamely the cheapest goods on the world market?

Mr. Slater: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that there is no embargo on buying foreign goods and that when foreign components are included in goods supplied by British firms we do not usually find out. But in this case, where the working of the compressor depends on the efficiency of the engine, we had to be told what engine the firm intended to use and the fact that the engine is foreign was thus incidentally disclosed.

Postal Charges

Mr. Webster: asked the Postmaster-General what postal and parcel charges have been increased since 20th July, 1966.

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Postmaster-General why he raised the cost of letter cards to Cape Town from 6d. to 9d., an increase of 50 per cent., during the credit squeeze; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Burden: asked the Postmaster-General why he has increased the price of air mail letters and parcels post in view of the price freeze.

Mr. Short: The increased charges are listed in columns 659 to 666 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 20th July. As announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on that day they are an integral part of the measures necessary to remedy the economic situation. I do not, therefore, propose to suspend them.

Mr. Webster: May I congratulate the Postmaster-General on one of the slowest deliveries since 20th July, particularly as the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has stated that it is unpatriotic to put up prices? In addition, is it not despicable that closing time has been put forward to 5.30, so that prices have gone up and services have gone down? Is not this disrespect to the House, as the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is looking into the whole business?

Mr. Short: I cannot agree that it is despicable that Post Office workers should have an extra half-hour of leisure a day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not very bright at this time."] It may not be very bright, but Post Office workers are now getting an extra half-hour's leisure because post offices are closing at 5.30 instead of 6, which I think is quite reasonable. Increased charges were applied to only


the parts of the Post Office which were not paying, and some charges were reduced on 20th July.

Mr. Bryan: Will the Postmaster-General explain how the raising of postal charges, with all the consequent costs to industry, is regarded as a sound budgetary measure, but the raising of laundry charges, with less serious consequences, brings into action the full force of Part IV?

Mr. Short: Because if the charges were not raised in this way, the taxpayer would have to pay the cost on his taxes, which is just the same.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that despite the increased charges a great deal of first-class mail is not delivered first post the next morning and that parcel deliveries are worse than ever?

Mr. Short: I agree that parcel deliveries are not quite as good as letter deliveries, but 92 per cent. of letters are delivered first post the next morning.

Messrs. Hooker, Brightlingsea (Cans)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Postmaster-General why, after 15 years, he is now asking Messrs. Hooker of Brightlingsea to put fibreboard or wood containers round their cans, and so add to their costs of production.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Recent cases of damage to cans of die lubricant posted by Messrs. Hooker led us to recommend additional packing, both in the firm's interest and also to protect other parcels from soiling. Unless they either use this packing or satisfactorily modify the sealing of the cans we cannot agree to compensation in the event of damage.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this firm has not in any way altered its standards and believes that the trouble is the fault of the Post Office? Will he look into this again, because he is suggesting unnecessary costs of production for this firm which sends a lot of its cans for export?

Mr. Slater: That may be so with this firm, but we know from experience that the sealing of the special cap in the lid is inadequate. We have had these matters investigated, and when a can is travelling

in a bag with other parcels, some of them weighing up to 22 pounds, this cap is liable to be sprung. I should like to invite the hon. Gentleman to go into one of our offices to see how these parcels are handled and what happens to bad packages which have to be handled by our people.

Post Office Staff (Pay Negotiations)

Mr. Dean: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has now resumed pay negotiations with organisations representing Post Office staff.

Mr. Short: The detailed application of the Prices and Incomes Standstill to all outstanding reviews of Civil Service pay is currently being considered by the Government and until the general issues of principle have been resolved negotiations cannot usefully proceed beyond the establishment of relevant facts. When they can, we will get ahead as quickly as possible.

Mr. Dean: Is not the claim of the Post Office engineers in particular based on the report of the pay research unit issued as long ago as November, 1965? Was not salary revision long overdue before the pay freeze came into operation? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these negotiations will proceed and that new scales will come into operation early next year?

Mr. Short: I have recently discussed this matter with the Executive Committee of the Society of Post Office Engineers and agreed that we conduct negotiations on establishing the facts up to the point where cash is involved, and I have also given an assurance that once the Government have decided the criteria for the next move forward, we will then be prepared to start talking about the actual cash involved in the new award.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman take up with the Treasury the matter of some of these telephone operators, because they feel that they have been badly treated and that an award was given some time ago which in fact is not now being paid?

Mr. Short: That is a different question, but the hon. and learned Gentleman and the telephone workers may be assured


that their point of view is put by me to the Treasury all the time.

Postal Deliveries (London)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to restore confidence among business men in the provincial cities that their letters will be delivered in London the following day.

Mr. Short: Nearly all letters—in fact, over 95 per cent.—for London posted in provincial cities by early evening are delivered the next weekday. There is very little complaint about the quality of this service.

Mr. Tilney: Is the Postmaster-General aware that some provincial firms which have a large number of documents to send to London have had to resort to using their own couriers? Now that there is competition with public corporations in the sphere of television and airlines, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the new Post Office Board should have similar competition in the future?

Mr. Short: The number of complaints that we get is between three and four per million letters. If one takes the traffic between provincial towns and London, over 95 per cent. of it is delivered by the next morning's first post.

Postal Deliveries (Liverpool)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Postmaster-General how many streets in Liverpool get their first post later now than they did in 1964.

Mr. Joseph Slater: About 1,200, but 2,500 streets get their first post earlier.

Mr. Tilney: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that some business men in Liverpool have had to change their hours of work because of postal delay? Is he further aware that I have in my hand four first-class mail letters, posted from different parts of the country to a comparatively small firm in Liverpool on Thursday, none of which arrived the following day? Can he take up with British Railways the question of the frequent late arrival of the London to Liverpool mail train?

Mr. Slater: We have taken note of the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I have no doubt that

we will be able to discuss this with British Railways. We are not responsible for British Railways; we are responsible for the postal service. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was in the House on 2nd August, 1965, when my right hon. Friend the then Postmaster-General informed the House that the scheduled finishing time of the first delivery in Liverpool, as in other towns—not only in Liverpool—was being extended by 15 minutes, as part of the effort to reduce costs and improve labour utilisation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has not the Assistant Postmaster-General made a most extraordinary statement in saying that he feels no responsibility for the British Railways mail train? Is it not his business, however the letters are carried, whether by stagecoach, aeroplane or rail, to see that they get there on time?

Mr. Slater: We have the Royal Mail train but we are not responsible for running British Railways and the hon. Gentleman should realise that.

Post Office Board (Mr. J. E. Wall)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Postmaster-General why he decided to appoint Mr. J. E. Wall of Electrical and Musical Industries as deputy-chairman of the Post Office Board at a salary of £12,500 per annum whereas the Postmaster-General as Chairman of the Board receives a salary of £8,500 per annum, which is £4,000 less; and whether he is satisfied that Mr. Wall's appointment will lead to better postal services.

Mr. Short: Because £12,500 is paid to a number of heads of nationalised industries, whereas mine is a Ministerial salary. There is nothing new about this situation. The salary of the Director-General of the Post Office has exceeded that of the Postmaster-General since 1956, apart from a few months in 1965.
I do not accept for one moment that postal services are bad, but I am sure that Mr. Wall will do all in his power to eliminate shortcomings in any of the services for which he will be responsible.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does this appointment mean that the tightly-knit bureaucracy in the Post Office is at long last giving way to inspired leadership from private enterprise?

Mr. Short: Mr. Wall has built up a reputation, both in the Civil Service and in industry, as an inspired and progressive leader. I am delighted to bring him into the Post Office. As I said when I made the initial announcement about the change of status, I hope that there will be a great deal of cross-fertilisation.

Mr. Dickens: While in no way wishing to cast any reflection upon Mr. Wall in relation to this appointment, may I ask whether or not the Postmaster-General would agree that the time has now come to make appointments in the public sector of industry from the many able and willing people already working there? Would he not agree that he needs to make a career for the talent in the public service, and that this sort of appointment is most unfortunate?

Mr. Short: I do not agree for one moment that this is a most unfortunate appointment; I cannot imagine a better one. Mr. Wall has unequalled experience, (a) of the Civil Service, (b) of the electronics industry and (c) of industry generally. He is tailor-made for this job.

Mr. Bryan: Will the Postmaster-General accept that we acknowledge the complete integrity of Mr. Wall but, as a matter of principle, is it right that a Government Department should accept monetary favours from its suppliers? Will the Postmaster-General confirm that E.M.I. is paying Mr. Wall for services, not to E.M.I. but to the Post Office? Would it not be far fairer to Mr. Wall if his whole salary was shouldered by the Post Office, for which he will work, and not given in considerable part by E.M.I., which in its normal course of business must be seeking orders from his Department?

Mr. Short: Mr. Wall is certainly having his salary made up by his firm. He is seconded for two years. If we want this kind of cross-fertilisation—if we want people to come from industry to service in the Civil Service or any corporation for a period—then we have to put up with this kind of thing, unless the community is prepared to pay the sort of salaries in the public service as are paid in industry.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any contractual relationship, or supplying relationship,

between E.M.I. and the Post Office?

Mr. Short: Yes, there is. It is not a very big one but there is such a relationship. I am quite sure, and I give my word to the House, that E.M.I. will receive no advantage from this. The problem will be to ensure that E.M.I. does not suffer as a result.

Machine-franked Mail

Mr. Derek Page: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to allow reception of machine-franked mail after normal Post Office hours.

Mr. Joseph Slater: It is in the interests of both the Post Office and its customers that mail should be posted as early in the day as possible. However, where franking machine users need to hand in their mail after the counter is closed, head postmasters have been instructed to do their best to meet them. The actual arrangements will depend on local circumstances. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will let me have details, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Page: While I am delighted to hear that head postmasters have been given instructions to help where possible, may I ask whether my hon. Friend can say precisely what form this help takes? Will he give an assurance that he will look into the position at King's Lynn and make sure that all possible help is being given to firms there?

Mr. Slater: Apart from handing franked mail over the counter, customers can put it in special envelopes, and post them in specified boxes. The amount that can be posted in this way is limited. People are supposed to use this facility for urgent matter only, and for no more items than can be enclosed in one of the special envelopes.

Mr. Tilney: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that I have an example when early mail has failed to arrive the following day, whereas late mail has? Is not this almost African in its standard?

Mr. Slater: I do not dispute this but this sort of thing can happen. Like other hon. Gentlemen in this House, the hon. Gentleman is associated with certain


business interests and just as I would say that in his field of operations he is not 100 per cent. perfect so we do not claim to be 100 per cent. perfect.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said apply to envelopes containing football pools?

Post Office Workers (Transfer)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General why an order has recently been issued preventing the transfer of Post Office workers to other branches of the Civil Service when jobs are offered to them.

Mr. Short: I know of no such order, but the Conservative Government decided that there should normally be no movement permitted between the Post Office grade of postal and telegraph officer and the general service grade of clerical officer, whether on transfer or by competition.

Mr. Lewis: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this order is apparently being implemented very strongly at the moment? Since he is very anxious to take every opportunity to bring private people into Post Office employment, does not he think that he should make the same opportunity available to people within the Post Office to go into private industry or another department within the Civil Service and to allow them to transfer their pension in the interests of the mobility of labour? At present they are not allowed to take their pension rights with them. This seems to be unfair.

Mr. Short: I agree that the problem of the transferability of pension rights has to be faced in the very near future. Job transfer is permitted in other grades in the Post Office. Only in this grade is it not permitted. It is because there is a shortage here. When we train people for this grade, we feel that we should be able to retain them.

Postal Services

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give details of the improvements in postal services which have taken place during 1966.

Mr. Short: The House will not wish me to itemise our constant efforts towards

improvements; but our information based on continuous sampling processes using modern sampling techniques shows that some 92 per cent. of fully paid inland letters are now delivered by the next working day after posting, compared with 90 per cent. mentioned in our Report and Accounts for last year.

Sir G. Nabarro: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his statement last Wednesday that there has been a slight improvement in postal services during 1966 with the increased public clamour to the contrary and the abundant evidence that postal services are worse than they have ever been since the introduction of the penny post in 1840?

Mr. Short: The only increase in public clamour is from the Opposition. The number of complaints which we receive has dropped considerably. I repeat that there has been a 2 per cent. improvement in first post deliveries this year.

Mr. Mikardo: Would my right hon. Friend undertake to put in the Library a list of all the British firms which carry out 92 per cent. of their promised deliveries on time? Would he be good enough to take it from me that he would not need many sheets of paper for the purpose?

Mr. Short: I do not know whether we can put it in the Library, but I can tell my hon. Friend that over 9,000 contracts in the Post Office are now behind delivery date.

Mr. Bryan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that in his worthy efforts to defend his Department he is beginning to sound rather self-satisfied? Would he tell the House to what extent he has gone into the report of the Sun newspaper published on—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is the next Question."] No—in which it was reported that 200 million letters per annum are lost or delayed in post? May we have the results of his investigations into that report?

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) is anticipating Question No. 34. I understood from the hon. Member's remarks


that he was referring to some other statement in the Sun newspaper.

Mr. Bryan: May I complete the question?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Bryan: Perhaps the Postmaster-General would also comment on the report that 4,750 letters each week are delayed on the way to Newmarket?

Mr. Short: Both parts of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question are deductions drawn from completely inaccurate premises, and therefore they are inaccurate.

Postal Deliveries (Newspaper Article)

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Postmaster-General what was the outcome of the investigation initiated in his Department into the delay occasioned to eight letters posted by the San newspaper on 5th–6th October last.

Mr. Short: My investigation, which has been carried out personally and with great care, has proved that the article in the Sun newspaper of 10th October was misleading and inaccurate. The inquiry by the Sun was conducted in an incompetent way. Half of the 600 test letters posted on the 4th October were incorrectly addressed—one-third of them omitted the most vital part of the address namely the post town. Nevertheless, the Post Office delivered a very large proportion of the items to time and the claim that eight are still missing is quite false. Though on 20th October the Sun was still stating that eight missing letters had not yet reached their destinations, on 13th October the writer of the article, who was invited to the Post Office, handed to the Post Office many of the 600 test letters, included in which were six of the alleged missing envelopes. From slips inside these items it appears that four of them certainly were delivered not later than 6th October and it is probable the other two were also delivered on that day.

Rural Areas (Social Services)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Postmaster-General what steps his Department is taking to assist people living in rural

areas to make contact with their local social services.

Mr. Short: I am introducing an experimental scheme on 7th November, in conjunction with the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council, under which people who want help from their local bureau will be able to make an initial approach by using reply-paid forms, obtainable on request from rural post offices and rural postmen. The experiment will be carried out in the rural areas around Bedford, Ulverston and The Wrekin.
I have also decided to establish a fellowship, at a university yet to be selected, to carry out research into the communication needs of housebound people living alone and people in similar circumstances, especially the elderly, who may need urgent help in emergencies.

Mr. Dobson: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply and for that very welcome news, may I ask whether he has at the same time considered anything of a similar nature in the telephone service?

Mr. Short: Yes. We are, of course, at present carrying out an experiment in Manchester among a number of old people living alone. We are evaluating the results of this experiment, in which the instrument is plugged in to the electricity main. This is proving of great assistance to old people living alone and I hope that if it is successful, we may be able to use it in other areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Subscribers (Interrupted Service)

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Postmaster-General what provision there is under the existing regulations for the payment of compensation to those whose telephone service is interrupted for any reason whatsoever; and what proposals he has for varying those regulations.

Mr. Short: Under existing Regulations, which I do not propose to change, the Post Office is not liable for compensation in respect of interruption of telephone service.

Mr. Macmillan: Does not the Minister think that he might look at the problem


again since the number of breakdowns and interruptions is increasing steadily, as is the number of shared lines? This is surely a reflection on the efficiency of the service as a whole, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot provide the service, should he not think of compensating people who are affected by failure?

Mr. Short: I do not accept that we do not provide a service. We provide a first-rate service. There is no evidence that the number of breakdowns is increasing. In certain circumstances we make ex gratia payments, and in certain circumstances we give a rebate of the rental, but to do it whenever there is a breakdown would be impossible because the charge is about Is. a day.

Fauldhouse, West Lothian

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the telephone services to and from Fauldhouse, West Lothian.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I am sorry that service to and from Fauldhouse suffers from congestion. This will be relieved by a new cable which should be ready in a few weeks.

Mr. Dalyell: Why was not the cable completed sooner? Could not temporary relief have been given to the excellent staff at Bathgate? Are there any other matters in hand?

Mr. Slater: The cable was not completed sooner because it was delayed by road works. Temporary relief would have been difficult and costly. It was better to concentrate on getting the new permanent cable into service.

Long-Distance Calls (Failure Rate)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General what is the percentage rate of failure of long-distance telephone calls via subscriber trunk dialling and through manual exchanges, respectively; and what was the rate of failure via manual exchanges before the introduction of subscriber trunk dialling.

Mr. Short: A total of 65 per cent. of subscriber trunk dialled calls gets through first time. Of the remainder, 5 per cent. fail, owing to defective functioning of Post Office plant, and the balance of 30 per cent. fail because the caller makes dialling

errors, receives engaged tone or gets no reply from the number he is calling.
A direct comparison between the service given by subscriber trunk dialling and via the operator cannot be made. As the reasons for this are somewhat complex, I am writing to the hon. Gentleman to explain them.

Mr. Cooke: The House will require far more information than the right hon. Gentleman has given. Will he please look at this matter most carefully because the general impression that the public have is that the service is pretty poor?

Mr. Short: This is not the general impression. The service is first-rate. It is becoming fashionable to throw bricks at the Post Office. So long as I am Postmaster-General I will accept valid criticism, but this is not valid criticism.

Mr. Bryan: Will the Postmaster-General tell us whether his figures tally with the figures of the Consumer Association Magazine "Which?" in which it says that one in ten of all calls is not successful?

Mr. Short: I cannot recall the figures at the moment so I cannot discuss them with the hon. Gentleman, but the overall picture of the "Which?" investigation was quite favourable to the telephone service.

New Equipment

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Postmaster-General what evidence he has of inefficiency in the new telephone equipment now being installed throughout the country to provide easier dialling facilities.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I am not aware of any widespread inefficiency in new telephone equipment, and if the hon. Gentleman has any particular case of failure in mind I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: In thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I say that there is certainly evidence in my part of the world, where on many exchanges it is necessary to dial a large number of letters or figures, that the telephone starts to give the engaged signal long before one completes the required code?

Mr. Slater: My information concerning the hon. Member's constituency is


that we have not had any complaints regarding telephone facilities in operation. In view, however, of the hon. Member's supplementary question regarding his constituency, we will have another look at the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Local Sound Broadcasting

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to be able to make a statement on the Government's policy towards local sound broadcasting financed by advertising.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Postmaster-General whether, as a corollary to his proposed action against the pirate radio stations, he will allocate medium wave channels for legitimate local broadcasting on a commercial basis.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Postmaster-General if he will seek power to authorise commercial local sound broadcasting.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Postmaster-General what plans he has to provide alternative broadcasting services, especially for fringe areas, now that he intends to restrict certain local broadcasting facilities.

Mr. Stratum Mills: asked the Postmaster-General what is the proposed date of publication of the White Paper on Broadcasting; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Short: I would ask the hon. Gentlemen to await the White Paper on Broadcasting, which will be issued very shortly.

Mr. Gilmour: Since the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said on 3rd March that he expected to reveal the Government's intentions shortly after the General Election, does not the Postmaster-General think that it is now very overdue?

Mr. Short: I agree that it is taking a very long time but, as I have said time and again, we in this country have been bequeathed a broadcasting system which is extremely difficult to work. Half of

it is publicly owned and the other half privately owned. It is from this dichotomy, as I have said before, that nearly all our troubles come, but the White Paper will be issued very shortly.

Mr. Griffiths: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so leery or so scared to go for legitimate local broadcasting stations? The United States, Canada and Australia have these local stations, so why not here?

Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said last week he would have heard me say that I am much in favour of local broadcasting. I hope that he will await the White Paper.

Mr. Ridsdale: Since we have a mixed economy, why cannot we have mixed broadcasting? There are several of these radio stations off my constituency and they provide excellent broadcasting. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure my constituents that they will be replaced by some good local radio stations?

Mr. Short: We shall put something in their place.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the White Paper will be published before the Second Reading of the Bill dealing with pirate stations and that we shall have time to debate the White Paper before the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Short: I can give no such assurance. I have pointed out many times that there is no connection between the two. The pirate broadcasting stations are illegal, outside the law and must be closed down.

Mr. Fisher: While we all appreciate the need to end this pirate broadcasting, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the great popularity of these programmes and the great demand for them and do his best to ensure that the demand is met?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. I do realise it and I understand that point of view. But the House should have no illusions. No legal radio station could do what the pirate stations are doing. The pirate stations ignore copyright laws and play records all day long. No local radio station under the law could do that.

Mr. O'Malley: Local broadcasting could serve a useful purpose, but will my right hon. Friend make clear that the Government have no intention of allowing private companies or individuals to run local sound broadcasting in this country?

Mr. Short: I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) on this in July. We will preserve the public service aspect of broadcasting in our proposals but I am afraid that he must await the White Paper for details.

Mr. Bryan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) admit that there is a close bearing between the anti-pirate Bill and the White Paper? Is it not the case that we are waiting for the Second Reading because the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put before the public the alternatives he has in mind?

Mr. Short: There is no connection whatever. I am aware of the ambivalence of the hon. Gentleman on the question of broadcasting. This illustrates the inherent lawlessness of the Conservative philosophy. The hon. Gentleman would not only throw overboard the rule of law in this case but every other rule of law as well if he could make a profit by doing so.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Reception (Seaford, Newhaven and Peacehaven)

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Postmaster-General whether the British Broadcasting Corporation has now found a suitable site for a low-power relay station to improve the reception of B.B.C.1 in the Seaford, Newhaven, and Peacehaven areas; how long he estimates it will be before the site has been acquired; and when the station is likely to be operating.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I understand from the B.B.C. that a suitable site has been found and that negotiations for its acquisition are proceeding. The B.B.C. hopes to gain access to the site within six

months and to complete the station in 1968.

Sir T. Beamish: While that is at least fairly good news, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it amounts to a breach of contract to demand a fat licence fee in an area where the reception of B.B.C.2 is like looking at a Channel fog? Will the hon. Gentleman get the B.B.C. to provide a new relay station or waive the fee until that happens?

Mr. Slater: I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been delighted with my reply. Such conditions, I remind him, do not merely operate in his constituency or even in his particular area.

Amateur Broadcasting

Mr. Gurden: asked the Postmaster-General if he will license young amateurs for sound broadcasting and allocate wavelengths and limited time through registered non-profit-making clubs for this activity.

Mr. Short: No, Sir. In this country, broadcasting has always been entrusted to public corporations, and not to private individuals. Of course, qualified radio amateurs may be licensed to transmit on special wavelengths for the sole purpose of communicating with one another and not to broadcast generally.

Mr. Gurden: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there have been prosecutions of young people in Birmingham and other places recently? In these days of delinquency and crime, would he not try to encourage this sort of activity?

Mr. Short: I have a great deal of sympathy with the feeling behind the hon. Gentleman's question. Some schoolboys in his constituency were, rightly, prosecuted and fined for doing this while rich Americans get away with it and make great profits out of it. I remind him that the Conservative Party Conference this year voted to allow them to continue to do so.

Reception (Crediton and Newton St. Cyres)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he will take to improve the reception and stop the interference of British Broadcasting Corporation programmes in the Crediton, Newton St. Cyres area of Devon.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The B.B.C. tells me that, in these areas, its services are not particularly liable to interference and that reception of them should be generally satisfactory. If, however, the hon. Gentleman would let me have details of the interference to which he refers, I will gladly have it investigated.

Mr. Mills: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in 1966 it is about time that every area was able to receive adequate coverage of B.B.C. programmes? Will he bear in mind that many viewers, particularly in bad areas, would rather be able to see B.B.C. programmes than, say, a programme via Early Bird from Australia?

Mr. Slater: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but I am given to understand that the B.B.C. is doing everything it possibly can in this regard.

Radio Scotland

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has had from Radio Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Short: A company describing themselves as the selling agents for Radio Scotland have recently written to me seeking authority for Radio Scotland to establish a commercial sound broadcasting station, or a chain of stations, on land. The company have been advised to await a statement of Government policy on sound broadcasting.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As this station, which has a very wide listening public in Scotland, has shown its preparedness to co-operate in any scheme of Government licensing and any payment of fees, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that stations like Radio Scotland are prepared to operate legally if given a chance?

Mr. Short: I imagine, as Sir A. P. Herbert pointed out in The Times yesterday, that every burglar, too, would like legalising.

Mr. William Hamilton: Am I correct in assuming that Radio Scotland is operating within territorial waters? If that is the case and it is infringing the law, why has no prosecution taken place?

Mr. Short: This is rather a difficult one.

Sir G. Nabarro: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman catch it?

Mr. Short: It is a hulk. There are no engines in it, but I understand that it is towed about from one place to another, sometimes in territorial waters and sometimes not. Whether there should be a prosecution is a matter not for me, but for the Procurator-Fiscal.

Mr. Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when dealing with this obviously difficult problem that, quite apart from whether Radio Scotland has a higher quality of music than the B.B.C., there are many people in my constituency and, I am sure, in many others whose only listening is to Radio Scotland or Radio Caroline, because B.B.C. programmes are not audible in their areas? This is an important consideration and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep it in mind.

Mr. Short: I think that a lot of people listen to this station—taking its own figure, about one-third of the population—but the rest of us are about two-thirds.

Independent Television Reception (Chagford)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Postmaster-General what steps his is taking to enable people in the Chagford area of Devon to receive independent television programmes.

Mr. Short: The extension of the coverage attained by its services is primarily the responsibility of the Independent Television Authority. It has told me that in deciding on any further extension, it will take into account the claims of Chagford along with those of other localities.

Mr. Mills: Can the Postmaster-General tell me what would be the cost of a small relay or booster station in this area, which would overcome the problem? Will he also bear in mind that there are still too many pockets in the South-West where I.T.A. programmes cannot be received?

Mr. Short: I could not say what the cost would be, but I have discussed this matter with Lord Hill and the Authority has promised to look into it.

Shipping Communications (Pirate Radio Stations)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of occasions reported to him on which broadcasting from pirate radio stations has interfered with radio communications between ships at sea.

Mr. Short: If I am correct in assuming that my hon. Friend refers to communications between ships at sea and the shore, 49; the most recent being a letter which I have received today from the Chief Inspector of Lifeboats reporting interference to the Scarborough lifeboat on 2nd October. I have it here.

Mr. Dickens: Does not the Postmaster-General agree that those 49 instances are instances of absolutely the utmost of public irresponsibility, and does he not also agree that they should be brought to the attention of the London offices of the pirate radio stations in order that the public at large may know what their attitude is, if they have one, to this question?

Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, it is true that the stations, as I have said before, operate outside the law. The figure is 49, but they have long since stopped reporting individual cases, so that the actual instances are much more than that.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Could the right hon. Gentleman say in what period those 49 instances occurred?

Mr. Short: Pirate radio ships started up with Radio Caroline in March, 1964, when the Conservative Government were in office, and that was when action should have been taken, of course.

Mr. Bob Brown: Bearing in mind the way in which Australia has dealt with her first pirate radio station, will my right hon. Friend consult with his hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy with a view to some combined operation?

Mr. Short: We have considered many things, of course, but our aim has been to avoid violence and to do this in accordance with the Council of Europe convention.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will reopen discussions with representatives from the House of Lords with a view to a reallocation of accommodation within the Palace of Westminster.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): The allocation of accommodation within the Palace of Westminster was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement on 23rd March, 1965, but if any hon. Member has any suggestions for the better use of this accommodation I will gladly consider them.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that suggestions have repeatedly been made to get these people out of here altogether? If they are to stay, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the Lords get an unduly high proportion of the accommodation in this building, whether one takes as yardsticks the attendance in the respective Houses or the numbers involved and the hours worked? Would he have another look at this very bad agreement?

Mr. Crossman: If my hon. Friend had listened he would have known that that was exactly what I said I would do. However, I remind him that the agreement was made only a relatively short time ago and that if it was to be disturbed all the parties to it would have to be consulted.

Mr. Hogg: Would the Lord President of the Council explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Fyfe, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that, apart from the political functions of the Lords, accommodation is needed in the House of Lords for the highest court of the Judiciary in the land?

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that since 20th July the prices of a two-course lunch and dinner in the House of Commons dining room have increased by 20 per cent.; and what action the Services Committee proposes to take.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord President of the Council when the Services Committee propose to commence the inquiry into the reasons for the losses


incurred by the Catering Department of the House of Commons.

Mr. Crossman: As my predecessor announced on 10th August in reply to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) is considering ways and means of meeting the losses incurred by the Refreshment Department. In the meantime, however, it has been found necessary to increase prices in order to meet the extra cost falling upon the Department as a result of the Selective Employment Tax, no part of which, in view of the large deficit, could be absorbed. I will inform the House as soon as the review being conducted by the Select Committee is complete.

Mr. Tuck: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that this makes complete nonsense, first, of the whole prices and incomes policy and, secondly, of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Selective Employment Tax would result in an increase of only 1 or 2 per cent. Secondly, if the House of Commons, of all places, flies straight in the teeth of the intention behind the Act, does he expect the rest of the country to conform with it?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the answer to each of the three parts of the supplementary question is "No". The Refreshment Department made very heavy losses. They were so heavy that the instruction of the First Secretary, which was that the Selective Employment Tax should be absorbed as far as possible, could not be carried out. It could not be done by a concern which already had a loss such as that which I mentioned the Refreshment Department suffered.

Mr. Rankin: Apart from the loss of £18,000 to which I referred last Wednesday, is my right hon. Friend aware that the new manager arrived since last Wednesday, took one look at his job and resigned? Does not that emphasise the need for a very close inquiry into the working of this department? Does my right hon. Friend realise that if he raises prices he stands the chance of going to gaol?

Mr. Crossman: I accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that we need a drastic inquiry, which I have assured my hon.

Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) we will undertake. If my hon. Friend's information is correct—and I am not sure whether it is—it would strongly support my view that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford was unfair in his statement that this had much to do with the Selective Employment Tax.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the Lord President recall that only last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not know that prices in the Refreshment Department had gone up? Will he undertake to try to persuade his right hon. Friends who live in tied houses to come and make more use of the Refreshment Department and try to get rid of the losses?

Mr. Heifer: asked the Lord President of the Council why the Merseyside edition of the Liverpool Daily Post is not always available to hon. Members, in the Library and Members' Tea Room and Smoking Room, before 2 p.m. on the day of publication; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: Copies of the final Merseyside edition of the Liverpool Daily Post arrive in London about six hours later than the Welsh and North-West editions and are normally delivered at the House of Commons about midday.

Mr. Heffer: That is precisely the point I am making. Will my right hon. Friend put a bit of pressure in the right place to make sure that the Liverpool edition—after all, Liverpool is only 200 miles from London; it is not at the North Pole—is here in the morning so that hon. Members from that area can see it at an earlier time?

Mr. Crossman: This is a delicate question concerning the various editions of the Liverpool Daily Post. I gather that the Welsh edition arrives earlier, but I am also told that it is an earlier edition. It may be that the Welsh do not mind their news a little too early, but Liverpool, which requires the latest possible news, is bound to wait a little longer for the reception of the special late news edition which it gets.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the Lord President aware that the caustic and critical comments of this newspaper on the activities of the Government necessitate its arrival in the Library before 2 o'clock for


required reading on any day of any Session?

Mr. Crossman: I doubt whether the caustic criticism of the Government often comes as part of the late edition. If an hon. Member were concerned to see an earlier edition such as a Welsh edition, he might find the same caustic criticism in it.

Mr. Strauss: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now state the scope of the Parliamentary reforms which he proposes to put before the House.

Mr. Park: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to introduce morning sittings on Wednesdays and Thursdays along the lines recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure, with a view to enabling the House to terminate its proceedings at a more reasonable hour at night.

Mr. Crossman: I would ask hon. Members to await the debate on procedure which I hope to arrange shortly.

Mr. Strauss: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that changes in the procedure or the arrangements of this House are primarily a Parliamentary and not a political matter and should, therefore, be left to the unfettered vote of its Members? Moreover, does he not recognise that it is constitutionally indefensible for the Government to tell hon. Members how they can most conveniently and effectively carry out their duties in this House?

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend thinks about the question of the free vote and I was careful when I made my statement last week to say that I could not give him any blanket understanding on the subject. I will certainly bear in mind what is obviously true: that wherever possible that should be arranged.

Mr. Sharples: How is it possible to make progress with Parliamentary reform when the Government themselves are responsible for the waste of Parliamentary time such as occurred in the Second Reading Committee this morning?

Mr. Crossman: That is a question of which I should like notice. If the hon. Member would like to put it down, I will answer it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever hour we meet in the morning, we shall still have to sit all night if Government business is arranged on the same basis as at present in trying to complete the Report stage of the Land Commission Bill in two sittings?

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend make one thing clear? When he brings forward his package deal, as he suggested he would, on Parliamentary reform, will we have free votes on the separate issues or will the House have to vote simply on the whole deal? Secondly, is it within my right hon. Friend's recollection whether, when the proceedings on Prayers were altered by the party opposite in, I think, 1951 or 1952, there was a free vote on that occasion?

Mr. Crossman: I would need notice of the second part of that question. In reply to the first part, as I now see it we are likely to have three different Reports to discuss and Motions on each of them. I think that we may have a large number of Motions each of which would, I presume, be voted on separately.

Mr. Turton: Does that include the Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure in the 1964 Parliament, to most of whose recommendations the Government have paid not the slightest attention?

Mr. Crossman: I am not intending to go as far back as that. We will discuss, I think, the last three.

LEGAL VACATIONS

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Attorney-General how many representatives of the public, litigants or witnesses are participating in the present review of the length of the legal vacations.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Joint Committee set up by the Bar Council and the Law Society, which I mentioned in answer to his Question of 19th October. It will be a matter for the Committee, which has only just been set up, to decide from whom evidence will be taken, but I am sure that it will bear in mind the importance of ascertaining the views not only


of the legal profession, but also of others who are affected by the arrangements for the legal vacations.

Mr. Whitaker: While agreeing that my right hon. and learned Friend is the best and most loyal trade union leader in the House, may I ask whether, with his fairmindedness, he would not agree that this question affects the convenience of many more members of the public than lawyers? Will he not, therefore, ensure that the public interest is paramount in any decisions which are arrived at?

The Attorney-General: I am perfectly well aware of that and I hope that my trade union activities are helpful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Grieve: When considering the length of vacations, will the Attorney-General bear in mind that a large part of the Bar and, indeed, of the judiciary is occupied during the vacations with the work of quarter sessions and that, were the vacations to be cut short so as to interfere with the work of quarter sessions, part of the criminal work might well break down?

The Attorney-General: That is one of the several factors of which I ventured to remind the House when we discussed this matter last week.

LAWYERS AND MAGISTRATES (TRAINING)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Attorney-General what plans he has for changes in the training of lawyers or magistrates.

The Attorney-General: The training of lawyers is the responsibility of the appropriate authorities in the two branches of the legal profession.
So far as magistrates are concerned, all justices on first appointment to the bench or on appointment to a juvenile court panel are now required to undergo a course of training on the lines described in the White Paper laid before Parliament last December. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor does not propose to make any changes until further experience has been gained of the working of the present arrangements.

Mr. Whitaker: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend-agree that training in elements of medical knowledge might be more useful for lawyers than, for example, knowledge of Roman law and might serve to diminish unfortunate misunderstandings between the legal and medical professions in court?

The Attorney-General: I think that members of the profession acquire a good deal of medical knowledge in the course of their work. But this is the kind of problem which those responsible for education will, no doubt, be bearing in mind.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): With permission, I would like to make a personal statement.
In speaking in Monday's debate on redeployment, I said that there are now eight Government training centres in Scotland and that when the party opposite left office there was precisely one. I regret that I was in error here. The facts are that from 1952 to mid-1963 Scotland had one centre. In October, 1964, there were four centres. Today, there are seven centres, and an eighth is due to be opened next year.
I apologise to the House for inadvertently misleading hon. Members owing to misreading a table.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES)

3.32 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I beg to ask leave to bring in a Bill.
To remove the limit of three miles from residence in respect of subsistence allowances payable to magistrates under section 8 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949.
I rise for the third time to ask leave to introduce a Bill which I consider to be one of very considerable importance to the community.
If I were delivering a sermon on this particular topic I think that I would use the text, "If I had the wings of a crow". My reason for that would be this, that the principle of flat-rate subsistence allowance to justices was agreed several years ago. The regulations say that a justice is not entitled to subsistence allowance if the duties are performed not more than three miles from his usual place of residence, and those three miles are as the crow flies.
The last time I asked for leave to introduce my Bill, leave which was given, I referred to the fact that it was wrong to talk about a crow flying; that it would be more appropriate if, in referring to a justice in a court in London, shall we say, I spoke about a crow starting at the end of Piccadilly in the peak time and either walking towards the courts or taking a bus there. That, I think, would be a more appropriate standard of measurement of what a justice has to contend with if he happens to be living three miles or just under three miles from the court.
I am pleased to say that a statement on this matter was made quite recently by the Lord Chancellor himself, when he delivered his presidential address to the Magistrates' Association at the Guildhall on Friday, 14th October. He said this:
A subject on which many of you feel very keenly is the three-mile limit which is imposed on justices who wish to claim subsistence allowance. For some time it has been urged that the limit should be abolished, as it places an unnecessary and unfair burden on justices when attending their courts, especially when there is only a short break for lunch, and it also deters justices from attending meetings

and courses of instruction. In your Annual Report the Council say, 'We hope that this unfair restriction will be removed.'".
The Lord Chancellor continued:
Well, you will be pleased to hear that the Government, who have always been sympathetic to this"—
I must say that some Ministers of the Government have been, but I think that the Treasury has not been altogether over-helpful in this matter—
have agreed to accept it in principle.
He said, however:
But I must add there can be no question of implementing this decision while the present economic conditions last.
I am hoping that the modest amount which is required to meet what is a silly regulation should be provided even though conditions are stringent in the country today. It is absurd to expect a magistrate who happens to be living three miles from the court to rush home to lunch, prepare a meal, rush back to the court, and continue with his work. Anyone with a grain of sense, I am sure, will admit—and I am sure that this must have been overlooked at the time the regulation was made—that this is an absurd position—a bachelor, a spinster, rushing home at a peak time and trying to get back again to the court in order to administer justice in a proper way on returning there.
The provision itself, in many provincial places, does not really make much difference, because there people can get home fairly easily, in many cases. I am not talking about the larger cities. People can get home fairly easily, and many of the courts sit only in the morning. But it is a very different thing for busy magistrates attending courts in London, or various places outside but within the precincts of the county, and also in the larger cities throughout the country. They cannot, and do not, in fact, get home for the purpose of getting a meal. What they have to do is what many hon. Members before had to do, that is, bring sandwiches so as to be able to have some kind of a meal.
I am talking about most people who really are not in a position to buy a meal for themselves, while their colleagues on the bench, who live within a matter of only 100 yards further away from the court, are entitled to have their meal.
I am asking that the Government should take this into consideration even at the present time, and not use the position which has lasted for a considerable time, and which ought never to have been in existence, to say that this expense allowance should not be paid. After all, it is not a question of prices or of income. It is a question of expense and of an expense allowance.
People do not realise that our lay magistrates do 90 per cent. or thereabouts of the work in our magistrates' courts. If it were estimated what that saves the country in terms of fees which would otherwise have to be paid to stipendiaries, people would come readily to the conclusion that a figure near to £30 million a year would result. That is a considerable item.
We are anxious to have the right kinds of magistrates. It was said by the learned Attorney-General a few minutes ago that we need more of them in consequence of the increase in crime. We need many people who cannot possibly afford to come forward and offer their services because they are not in a position to stand the expense.
I am not asking that a loss of earnings allowance should be included in my Bill for the time being. That is why I have continued with my appeal to the House to permit me to introduce the Bill. I understand from a recent statement by the Lord Chancellor that that is under consideration and will probably be brought into effect. However, there is no reason why a small Bill like this should not be eranted, because it would make an immediate adjustment to the position and would not cost the country a large amount of money.
I have spoken on this subject on several occasions. A Second Reading of the Bill was permitted by the generosity of the Government a few days before the Recess, without any comment. However, I am hoping now that a genuine gesture will be made by them.
I wish to quote one instance to the House. I know of a lady who is a justice of the peace and who garages her car 100 yards from her home. The garage is outside the three-mile limit, whereas her home is a few yards within that limit, as the crow flies. Her application for subsistence has been refused on the ground that she resides within the three mile limit, in spite of the fact that she has to walk to a point outside the limit to her car. As a result, she is not given the allowance. There are many other similar illustrations. If hon. Members are not satisfied with the one which I have just given, they can read about others in previous speeches that I have made on the subject——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is seeking leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule.

Sir B. Janner: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I was intending to close my remarks straight away.
I ask the House, in these circumstances, to give me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Barnett Janner, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. John M. Temple, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. William Robinson, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Winterbottom, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Marcus Lipton, Mr. George Craddock, and Mr. Charles Mapp.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES)

Bill to remove the limit of three miles from residence in respect of subsistence allowances payable to magistrates under section 8 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th November, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

Orders of the Day — LAND COMMISSION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(CREDIT CARRIED FORWARD FROM PREVIOUS CHARGEABLE ACT OR EVENT.)

Where in accordance with Part I of Schedule (Credit carried forward from previous chargeable act or event) to this Act a credit is to be taken to have arisen from a chargeable act or event, such of the provisions of Parts II and III of that Schedule as are applicable to any subsequent chargeable act or event shall have effect as therein mentioned.—[Mr. Willey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is merely a paving Clause, providing a link——

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be to the convenience of the House if we were to discuss with new Clause 1 the Schedule which appears on page 3189 of the Notice Paper, as the Clause intends to introduce that Schedule?

Mr. Speaker: That makes sense to me if the House agrees.

Mr. Willey: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that would meet with the convenience of the House. These new Clauses are merely paving the way for new Schedules which are replacing old Schedules. I am certain that it would meet the convenience of the House better if we kept to our regular procedure and discussed the Schedules when we came to them. I think that it is far better to discuss first of all the provisions of the Bill and then come to the Schedules.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Leader of the House let the cat out of the bag a few days ago when he said that we usually take a certain time discussing the early pages of the Notice Paper and then romp through the latter pages. I am anxious that these Schedules should not be dealt with in the early

hours of Friday morning. They are something of a new Bill. This Bill went into Committee as one Bill. It has come out as two Bills.
We should discuss these Schedules, which are a new Bill in themselves, as a Second Reading with the new Clauses. It is quite ridiculous to pass these Clauses which introduce new Schedules without discussing the Schedules themselves. The Schedules are the machinery of the Bill, and we should discuss them now with the new Clauses.
Still on the point of order, I do not know what our position would be if the new Clauses which introduce these Schedules were accepted and then we came to discuss the Schedules later. It seems that we should have prejudiced the House by dealing with the new Clauses without discussing the Schedules which they intend to introduce.

Mr. John Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I think that the right hon. Gentleman is making the confusion with which we are becoming all too accustomed. He is identifying his own convenience with that of the House, and I do not think that the two are identifiable at all. I feel very much the same as my hon. Friend. If we are deprived now of an opportunity of discussing this new Schedule so lately introduced to us, we shall be nullifying the purposes of debate. I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman will not add to his reputation, because he will be deceiving the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is in the position that the Notice Paper is drafted in the normal form. Unless both sides of the House agree, I cannot depart from the usual procedure. But I do not see any harm in referring, in the debate on the new Clause, to the Schedule as far as it is connected with it.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying that this is a paving new Clause providing the link with the Schedule on credits, which is, in fact, the Schedule discussed before in Standing Committee. It is a Schedule which has now been marshalled with two provisions from Schedule 8.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Before I speak to the Clause itself, I wish to declare the same interest that I did in Committee, first of all, that I own a house with about half an acre of land and an interest in some other business properties.
My second interest is that I am a solicitor. I am declaring this interest because many guineas are to be gained for the legal profession because of the Bill, but I have yet to meet a member of my profession who is now in practice, and who has considered the Bill, and who would not willingly trade the guineas which he will get for the Bill if the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about the way in which the Bill has been presented to us. We have before us about 86 pages of Amendments. This is a very complicated matter, indeed, and we on this side of the House, particularly on the back benches, feel that we have been dealt with very shabbily by the Leader of the House in the time which he has given us to consider these complex and complicated Amendments.
I am speaking as a new Member of the House. I have not the expert backing which the Government have, and I therefore cannot do justice to my constituents whose interests are affected by the Bill, because of the short time which we have had to think about these Amendments before discussing them.
You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that we may refer to the Schedule to which the Clause relates. Indeed, it is almost impossible to debate the Clause without referring to the Schedule. When the old Schedule 6 which this Schedule replaces was discussed in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) was rash enough to
congratulate the Minister on the fact that it reads so much more likely than other Schedules.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the custom, when referring to the proceedings in Committee, to give the column number. It helps other hon. Members.

Mr. Clegg: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. It is column 920 on 4th August. On that occasion, my hon. Friend said:
I congratulate the Minister on the fact that it reads so much more likely than other Schedules. In fact, in Part III, the provisions

for carrying credit forward, it really becomes perfectly simple. In fact, it oversimplifies matters.
The right hon. Gentleman's reply to that was:
As this is so clear to the hon. Gentleman, I am not going to run any risk at all. It is going to remain as it is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 4th August, 1966; c. 920.]
In spite of that we now have a completely new Schedule. I think that the right hon. Gentleman must be learning to live dangerously. Perhaps this is because his Ministry may no longer be with us in a very short time.
I propose now to refer to the Schedule to amplify what I was saying earlier about its complexity. It is indeed a formidable Schedule, but that is by no means unique in this Bill. It is not only formidable, it is rather like a cannibal, because it feeds on itself. It consists of 227 lines, no fewer than 65 of which are devoted to an interpretation of the Schedule itself. To the average man in the street it will be complete and utter gibberish.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: To anybody.

Mr. Clegg: The Government are asking Parliament to enact a Measure which, as my right hon. Friend has just said, cannot conceivably be understood by anybody, perhaps not even by the right hon. Gentleman.
It used to be said that ignorance of the law excused no man, but that was put forward in simpler Roman times. It seems to me that that position is now changing, when we get legislation like this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to help the hon. Gentleman. He must link his remarks to the Clause. This is not the Third Reading of the Bill, or indeed the Second Reading, nor even the Second Reading of the new Schedules. The hon. Member must link what he has to say to the Clause before us.

Mr. Clegg: This Clause, with its implications, seems a good example of the sort of legislation which might one day lead our judges to pronounce that ignorance of the law is an excuse, because I feel that they will be driven to do so. This Clause, as part of the Bill, leads me to the reflection that the right hon.


Gentleman is an amiable man, as we found in Committee, but so was Frankenstein. Frankenstein built a complex monster, which, in the end, ran amok, and the only way to destroy it was by fire. This Clause, the Schedule, and the Bill, ought to be so destroyed.

Mr. Peyton: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said about the surprise that the Minister is still with us. With that lingering optimism which still affects our proceedings, we had hoped that he would have gone by now, but when he meets his fate he will at least have the consolation of knowing that he has gone out with the most disgusting of obsequies. I am referring to the sort of stuff that we are considering today. I do not believe that it is possible to find words adequate to condemn this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is an experienced Parliamentarian. He knows that he must talk about the Clause which we are discussing.

Mr. Peyton: If one can talk about the obscene, my restraint in coming to it is due to the measure of disgust which I feel at these proceedings. We have not had adequate time to consider this matter. The Leader of the House was asked five times the other day to delay the consideration of the Bill so that we could have an opportunity of ascertaining——

Mr. Archie Manuel: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would give the House a Ruling on the way in which the proceedings are being conducted? The hon. Gentleman has been talking about the Bill. The subject before us is the new Clause, but so far we have heard nothing about it from the hon. Gentleman. Are we to continue in this way? My right hon. Friend has moved the Clause, and that is all that he needs to do. Therefore, so that we may get on with our proceedings, I think that the Chair should no longer be defied.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for reinforcing the Ruling which I was modestly and temperately trying to convey to the House.

Mr. Peyton: If I may say so with respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman is paying you no compliment. I am

exceedingly grateful that you are the occupant of the Chair, and not the hon. Gentleman.
As I said before, I was tip-toeing delicately towards the obscene, and I now approach it. Having sat through the ordeal of listening to the Chief Secretary move Amendments to his own Finance Bill, I can say that never before have I heard a Minister, with quite such an unintelligible new Clause on the Notice Paper, get up and say that it was a paving Clause, and sit down. I believe that we are entitled to some explanation of what this gibberish means.
I repeat my objection to the attitude taken by the Minister about separating this Clause from the Second Reading of the Schedule. I believe that there are times when Ministers ought to sit and listen to what they have done. The Clause reads:
Where in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule (Credit carried forward from previous chargeable act or event) to this Act a credit is to be taken to have arisen from a chargeable act or event, such of the provisions of Parts II and HI of that Schedule as are applicable to any subsequent chargeable act or event shall have effect as therein mentioned.
The Minister has the insolence to get up and say that it is a paving Clause—crazy paving!
I am not clear whether I would be within the rules of order if I were to read the whole of this abominable Schedule, but I believe that Ministers should be punished for their impudence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no views at all on the Tightness, morality, desire to inflict justice, or revenge on the Minister. I simply warn the hon. Member that he must not read out the Schedule.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. That saves me from a very painful ordeal. May I ask for your guidance? To what extent are we entitled to ask the Minister, at this stage, what is meant by the Schedule? I take it from your Ruling that we are not in order in discussing the details of the Schedule now.

Mr. Speaker: It is clear that the hon. Member knows he is not in order in discussing the details of the Schedule. This is a new Clause. It makes certain provisions which affect certain Schedules. He


can discuss the Schedules only as they affect what is in the new Clause.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order. We are in great difficulty, Mr. Speaker. We cannot consider this Schedule just as an abstract theory. If we are to discuss the effects of the new Clause we have to discuss the effects of the new Schedule which it introduces. To discuss the effects of that, we have to look at the Schedule in some detail. I do not know whether we are permitted a further debate on the Schedule when we reach it on the Notice Paper.
I have looked at Erskine May on the subject, and I should like, with respect, to refer you to page 565, which gives quite clearly the order in which matters are dealt with on Report, and also to page 548, which deals with new Clauses and any new Schedule to which they refer. I would have thought that we could not discuss a new Clause and just vaguely and in theory discuss a Schedule to which it refers. We cannot come to a decision on a new Clause until we know the contents of the Schedule, and we shall not know the contents of the Schedule unless we can consider it in some detail.

Sir Eric Errington: There is another difficulty. Unless we have some clarification about the new Schedule there is no certainty that the House will agree to it. Therefore, in this Clause we are agreeing to carry out provisions contained in the Schedule although it may be that when we reach that Schedule it will be so obnoxious that we shall not accept it. We should surely have the right to discuss the Schedule and also have an explanation from the Minister about it while we are debating the new Clause.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member wanted to pursue a point of order. We dealt with this question some time ago. I have ruled that unless the consent of both sides of the House can be obtained, the Chair must follow the Notice Paper in the order in which the items appear on it.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has referred to Erskine May. With respect, I suggest that he has misinterpreted it. If he will look at page 566 he will see that it is there stated that

After the amendments to the clauses of the bill have been considered new schedules may be proposed and amended in the same way as new clauses. Amendments may then be made to the schedules of the bill as reported by the committee.
As I understand it, this is a normal Notice Paper. We must proceed. All that I suggest is that it would be intelligent to refer to the Schedules as far as they affect what is contained in the new Clause. I hope that the House will proceed. We have a long discussion ahead of us.

Sir E. Errington: I rarely intervene in these matters, Mr. Speaker, but from your Ruling the position seems to be that during the course of this discussion on the new Clause reference may be made to the Schedule. As I see it, the words
a credit is to be taken
in the Clause may refer to four or five different kinds of credit as referred to in the Schedule. I submit that at least those should be made clear, either by the Minister or by somebody. If this is not done the discussion is completely in the land of clouds.

Mr. Speaker: Apparently the hon. Gentleman was not here when we discussed this point of order. What he has said can be argued in the debate.

Mr. Peyton: I entirely accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I now address my remarks to the Minister.
It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman intentionally imposed upon the Opposition restraints and inconveniences which are wholly unnecessary. Without any explanation at all he said that he was introducing a paving Clause, although at the time he was aware that by imposing his ban—which he is entitled to do, according to your Ruling—he was preventing our discussing the Schedule with the Clause. He has just put down this piece of paving in order subsequently to drag in his dirty cargo of a Schedule. We are entitled to have a better explanation from him as to what the new Clause is about.
I know very well the opinion the Government have formed of the House of Commons. We have become accustomed to the derision and contempt with which the House is treated by the Government. Long ago, when there was a Conservative Administration, in the happy far-off days,


I complained that the House of Commons had become the pekingese of the Administration. It has now been reduced to something far below that stage by Ministers who are so convinced that they are right that they are not prepared to bother to explain what is meant by the gibberish that they put before us.

Mr. A. P. Costain: In my opinion and in the opinion of tax experts the Schedule to which the new Clause refers is quite unintelligible. I have gone to incredible trouble to try to understand the Schedule. I have been to three tax experts, all of whom have told me, "Do not be ashamed if you do not understand it. If anybody says he understands it he cannot be telling the truth". The Minister says that this is a paving Clause. The whole of the property world is waiting for him to explain what is in the new Schedule. One interpretation is that it will mean that tax will be charged at 87½ per cent. on any land deals.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is wandering into a debate on the Schedule. He must link what he has to say with the new Clause.

Mr. Costain: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I am as confused by your Ruling as I am by the Schedule. May I have some help from you? When can we obtain an explanation of the Schedule? Without it the Bill will be quite impracticable.

Mr. Speaker: When we reach the Schedule the Schedule will be debated, and I suppose that the information which the hon. Member seeks will be forthcoming.

Mr. Costain: I await with renewed interest the Minister's explanation in this respect.

Sir Douglas Glover: My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has clarified the debate more than anybody who has so far spoken. He tells us that he has seen three tax experts who have admitted that they do not understand the new Clause and cannot explain it. Perhaps it is not understandable by the right hon. Gentleman—who has never been considered to be particularly bright. Perhaps that is why he is unable to explain it to the House.

Mr. Manuel: Which right hon. Gentleman?

Sir D. Glover: The right hon. Member who is officially in charge of the Bill, but seems to be quite unable to explain to the House what is meant by the new Clause. I do not mind if there is some difficulty over this, because there are limitations to what he can say about the Schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) told us that five roads would be covered by the paving Clause. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue by back-chat across the House.

Sir D. Glover: Thank you very much for your protection, Mr. Speaker.
But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is perfectly true that the reason that the Minister has not given a proper explanation of the new Clause is that the Minister himself does not understand it. The House will be forced to that conclusion unless, before we leave the Clause, the Minister intervenes again to explain the Clause to the House and make it intelligible, so that the ordinary Member of Parliament can understand what it is that Parliament is being asked to pass.

Mr. Graham Page: The way in which the Minister introduced the new Clause in a few words was shocking. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman intended to be discourteous, as that is not in his nature; he has been most courteous in Committee and in our previous proceedings. But this just shows that the Bill is quite impossible and unintelligible and that even he is not prepared to explain to the House what the new Clause is about. He leaves it to us, in Opposition, to explain to him what his own Clause means.
The penultimate line of the new Clause refers to a "chargeable act or event" and says that it shall have certain effect as mentioned in the Schedule. A chargeable act or event in this Bill has the effect that a levy is imposed on somebody. The implications of a Case A sale of land by Mr. A to Mr. B are that the levy is charged on the difference between the market value, which may well be the sale price of the property, and the base value, some other value calculated in accordance


with the Bill. That is to say, one takes a base value, finds out the market value, and, the market value being, one assumes, greater than the base value, there is a difference and levy is calculated on it.
How stupid can an Act get when, having calculated all that in accordance with the miles of Schedules, one finds that the base value exceeds the market value? This is the purpose of the Schedule. In short, the Clause, which introduces the new Schedule, says that one can go through all the calculations of all the other Schedules in the Bill, which are all based on the fact that someone is making a profit out of selling land, and that one will be charged a levy out of what one gets for selling it as compared with what one paid for it. This is a rough basis.
But having gone through all the calculations of finding out what the base value is and what the market value is, in some cases one will find that one has made a loss—that the market value is less than the base value. For that reason, we have to introduce a Schedule to say that, under those circumstances, one will have a credit.
This is in the Clause:
… a credit is to be taken to have arisen".
But what happens to the credit when it has arisen, when the base value, as calculated in accordance with the Bill, exceeds the amount for which one sold the property? The Clause says that a credit has arisen. I understand "a credit" as meaning something to which a person is entitled. If I have a credit, I expect to realise it and to get some money from it, but that is not what happens under the Bill. Under this new Schedule, a credit arises and it is then rubbed out and completely disappears.
This is where the whole folly of the Bill is proven. One goes through elaborate calculations to find out on what sum of money to levy a credit and finds in the end that one is levying it on a minus quantity and so sets out a Schedule under which one says that there is something which, in ordinary English, means a sum of money, a credit, and then in the Schedule which we are discussing, one reads that that credit is just wiped out and that nobody gets it. To understand this Schedule, as my hon. Friend the

Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said, one must read through 67 lines of interpretation, and then Part II and Part III.
In trying to calculate the figures on which the levy is to be calculated from other Schedules in the Bill, we have come to be familiar with the phrase, "current use value". I thought that we understood this, but in the Schedule which we are trying to introduce in this Clause, the "current use value" does not have its 10 per cent. added as in other Clauses and Schedules and Part III seems to muck about with the 10 per cent. and put it on some other amount altogether, which again makes the whole calculation quite unintelligible.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman and I went through those long Committee discussions together and we tried to understand what was going on. We gained some knowledge at any rate. In effect, what the new Clause is doing is what the hon. Gentleman would do with property of his own. If he assumed that it had a certain value which it did not attain when put up for sale on the market what would he do about it? He would accept what he could get even if it fell below the notional value which he thought it had. This is all that the new Clause is doing, and nothing else——

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. Am I not right in thinking that interventions in speeches should be kept within modest limits, and is not the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) well exceeding those modest limits?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): That is the principle. I do not think that the hon. Member has quite reached that limit at the moment, although he is very near it.

Mr. Graham Page: I was obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention, because it supported my argument to the hilt. I am saying that the Bill sets out the most complicated calculations for finding out on what sum the levy is to be levied. Having gone through all those calculations we now find in this new Schedule that they may turn out to be a farce, resulting in something ridiculous such as a minus quantity, so that the Schedule must be put into the Bill to take


into account this ridiculous situation. The very fact that this has to be done shows the stupidity of the rest of the Bill and shows that, when one starts to impose a levy of this sort, this is the sort of stupid difficulty against which one comes.
The Minister has struggled manfully to put theory into practice, but right at the beginning of this Report stage, with this new Clause introducing a Schedule of that sort, he has proved that the machinery to put this levy into operation just will not work. The machinery is so complicated that it will break down before the administration can go into operation.
I trust that I have not gone into too much detail on the new Schedule, as we shall certainly want to come back to it when it is reached, so as to ask for explanations in detail of the various unintelligible phrases used in it.

Mr. William Baxter: I intervene because I wish it to be on the record that there is a considerable: body of opinion on both sides of the House that people will have great difficulty, to say the least, in understanding the implications of the whole Bill. I have spoken to Queen's Counsel and a solicitor because I wanted to be briefed on the subject and to gain an understanding of the Bill greater than I had been able to gain as an amateur. Like the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), they expressed great difficulty in understanding it and admitted that they could not understand some parts of it.
It does not do this House any good to have Measures before it which probably even the Ministers concerned do not fully understand. With respect, I advise my right hon. Friend to find a more simplified method of achieving the objects of the Bill, and certainly of the new Clause, using the Queen's English and being understandable without there existing dubiety about the meaning of it.
Certain principles are involved in the new Clause, but they will be lost by the passage of time because nobody will be able to understand what the Measure means, and the whole thing will break down. Perhaps that is the purpose of the exercise. That is possible because I recall that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, was not understood to any great extent by many people. That broke down and could not work.

That might be the purpose of this Measure. If so, we should not make a farce of legislation and we should not place legislation on the Statute Book unless it is based on a simple formula which is understandable at least to hon. Members and solicitors.
The Bill should be withdrawn and reconsidered. I say that advisedly. It is fantastic that I should be asked questions about the meaning of some of its provisions and am not able to give a reply. How can I intelligently vote on this matter one way or the other? I agree with the broad principles involved, but they are lost in a morass of irrelevancies. That is why I say the Bill should be withdrawn and recommitted to a Committee upstairs on the basis of language which people can understand.

Mr. Rippon: We are grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). Indeed, it might be appropriate if we were to ask leave to report Progress, because the House as a whole is in very great difficulty about the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has taken counsel's opinion and has been advised that much of the Measure is unintelligible. I said at Blackpool the other day that it was unintelligible and unworkable, and that remains my view. It is obvious that hon. Members simply do not understand what the Government are trying to achieve.
The Minister described the new Clause as a "paving Clause", although he did not say what the Bill meant as originally placed before the Committee. Many hon. Members present today were not on the Committee. There, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was perfectly satisfied with the Bill. Now, apparently, he is not, so we have a new Clause and a new Schedule. What was the original position and why does he think that it is no longer satisfactory? What change is he about to make and why is he making it?

Sir John Foster: One of the difficulties about the new Clause is that it refers to a "chargeable act" and later refers to "any subsequent chargeable act". What is the difference between the two? In the Schedule they


are said to be the same thing and it is inconvenient that there should be a reference in the new Clause to two things which appear in the Schedule to be the same. Are they the same in the new Clause? The whole thing seems to make very little sense.
I press on the Minister a desirable reform in the drafting of legislation; that words defined in a definition Clause should be printed in black letters and words defined, in a Schedule, elsewhere than in a definition Clause, should be printed in italics. That way anybody reading it would immediately come upon the expression and know that it is defined somewhere. When reading the provision one gathered that a "chargeable act" was the same as "any subsequent chargeable act", but are they different? An act today would appear to be different from a subsequent act, although the Schedule makes them the same.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. I was under the impression that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) suggested that we might report Progress, so that the Government might have an opportunity to clear up the abominable miasma of misunderstanding and confusion which they have created. I was not certain whether my right hon. and learned Friend formally moved that Motion, but if he did not, would you accept such a Motion from me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since it seems that if ever there were grounds to report Progress—I admit that there is not much progress to report—they are here now.
As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out—and as the intervention of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) confirmed—none of us understands what is meant by the new Clause. For the Government to sustain their invitation to the House to continue sitting and to deliberate on a Clause which nobody has yet even claimed to understand cannot be right. The Minister merely described it in the most glib way and the further we go into this business the more sympathy I have for the right hon. Gentleman. He described it as a "paving Clause" and said no more.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member was rising to a point of order. The answer to it is that the

right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) did refer to a Motion to report Progress, but did not move such a Motion. No such Motion is appropriate on Report. It is appropriate only in Committee and if the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham had attempted to move such a Motion or a similar one I could not have accepted it. We are debating a new Clause and it is perfectly competent for an hon. Member to discuss what it means or is intended to mean.

Mr. Rippon: Further to that point of order. I did not formally move the Motion for the reason that you have given, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, the House is in great difficulty and I hope that I have at least persuaded the Minister not to sit any longer in solemn silence on this matter, but to tell us what it all means.
In our view, and on the best advice we can get—from tax experts, surveyors, estate agents, solicitors and Queen's Counsel—it does not mean anything at all. It does not matter what the Government's policy is, this does not give effect to their policy or to anybody else's policy. It is gibberish. It is pop-art. It is as though the print has been thrown at the paper and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking to a point of order. He has already made a speech and has, therefore, exhausted his right to speak further on the new Clause. It did not appear to me that he was raising a valid point of order, but was objecting to being unable to understand the new Clause. The whole object of the debate is to enable the House to enlighten itself as to the meaning of the new Clause. No point of order arises.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that there is a certain amount of unease on both sides because we fail to understand the purport of the new Clause. Knowing how anxious you are to help all hon. Members, I ask you to ask the Government Front Bench to send for the Solicitor-General, so that we may have the benefit of his advice in interpreting certain lines and portions of this Clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In answer to that point of order, it is not competent for the Chair to arrange for any particular Member of the House to be present. The House is in process of enlightening itself as to the meaning of the new Clause, and there are hon. Members present who, I have no doubt, are competent to do that.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: On a point of behaviour coupled with a point of dignity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is highly infra dig. and does the reputation of the House no good outside to continue a discussion at great length when we do not know what we are discussing—and the Treasury Bench knows even less. Is there nothing we can do to stop this farcical behaviour?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate, of course, that that is not a point of order. The whole purpose of the debate on the Clause is to enable the matter to be elucidated, and for the House to form an opinion about it and vote on it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Perhaps I might come to the assistance of the House. I am a little sorry, if I may say so with respect, that some of the speeches made at the beginning of this debate were made at all, because those who were in the Standing Committee will agree that very few Ministers could have been more patient and courteous than was my right hon. Friend. Although there are 97 Clauses and 13 Schedules to the Bill, we never once moved the Closure, and we had this very excellent discussion and argument in which we tried to answer all the points made.
Some of what has been said—although this may be part of the operation of prolonging the discussion, which I do not altogether understand—has been unfortunate and, I think, unfair. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) does not usually like to be put in that position, but I believe that he has been very unfair this afternoon.

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps I may intervene, as my name has been mentioned. I have no personal grievance against the Minister. I was merely commenting on what we have had to endure this afternoon. We

have been told by the Government that we cannot discuss the Schedule and the new Clause together. The Minister then says that something that no one understands is just a paving Clause, which is the most impudent thing I have heard for a long time.

Mr. Skeffington: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance in regard to the allusions to my right hon. Friend. We based ourselves on page 566 of Erskine May which says that after a Bill has been discussed and amended in Committee, there will be adequate explanation of what the Amendments and Schedules mean.
Some hon. Members referred to Schedule 6, and said that this was clearer than the new Clause. My right hon. Friend had said that it would remain as it was, and referred to an Amendment he had made to add the word "value" after "development". It was that concept that he thought was perfectly clear, and I thought that at the time he carried the Opposition with him. I therefore feel that there has been some misrepresentation, no doubt unintentional, of what he then said.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) made some play with the fact that one can go through all the procedure of assessment of levy and then find that in certain circumstances no levy may be payable. That, however, has always been a feature of the Bill. When the Committee discussed this very Schedule, and other Schedules, we were asked to consider a number of additional possibilities, and that is precisely what we have done. Having had discussions with a number of practitioners outside the House and having brought in a provision making it unnecessary to look at three or four Schedules to come to a conclusion, I find it a bit rough to get the sort of treatment that has been meted out to us this afternoon.
The new paving Clause introduces the giving of credits, and authority for this must be provided in the Bill itself. As a result of this provision, these credits, which are very much in the interests of the levy payer, can be taken into account very much more easily than before, and there is a lot of advantage to a levy payer both as to the method and as to the actual substance of the credits themselves.
There may be all sorts of cases when no levy will be payable, and I do not think that it is any demerit of the Bill to provide for this. There are cases—it will not often happen, but there will be cases—where the base value, that is, in the case of material development of Class C, the price which the developer has paid for the land, will exceed the development value on which the levy would be realised.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite would be the first to complain if we had not adequately provided for those cases, as we have done here.
All the new Clause does is to provide a link authorising these credits as specified in the new Schedule—Amendment No. 184—and explain how credits shall be calculated, the circumstances in which they arise, and how the procedure will operate. It merely gives authority for that to be done so that, in that sense, it is a simple paving Clause.
In view of my explanation, I hope that the House will be able to proceed to many of the very important considerations which have arisen in further discussions by the Government in which we have had the benefit of the views of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and the views of various bodies. We have tried, after the very full Committee stage, to carry this matter a step further.

Mr. Graham Page: If this is what the Schedule does, what is the objection to agreeing to discuss the Schedule with the new Clause? We are only precluded from doing that—and the Chair has ruled, as I understand it, that we shall not discuss the Schedule with the Clause—because the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary will not agree to it. We have been told what the Schedule contains, but surely, with the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman, we could discuss the Schedule now.

Mr. Skeffington: The view that my right hon. Friend took—with which, with respect, I agree, and which, I feel, would meet the general convenience of the House—is that the Schedules can only properly be assessed when we have added the Clauses and made any other Amendments to the Bill. This is in accordance with normal procedure; I have already

indicated the reference in Erskine May to Bills as amended. We think it in the best interests of individual Members of the House that this should be done. That is our honest view, so I hope that we can now proceed to a decision on this Clause.

Sir J. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point referring to
a chargeable act or event
and
any subsequent chargeable act or event"?
It seems idiotic to refer to an event and a subsequent one. Are they different in the Clause? Will he look at the Schedule——

Mr. Skeffington: When we come to it.

Sir J. Foster: It is not a question of looking at the Schedule, but a question of looking at the Clause now. The words in the Clause are:
a chargeable act or event
and then it says:
such of the provisions of Parts II and III of that Schedule as are applicable to any subsequent chargeable act or event.
It is necessary to find what those words mean. The only place where one can find what they mean is the Schedule and the Schedule says that they mean the same. Does that make sense?

Mr. Skeffington: Yes.

Sir J. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why?

Mr. Skeffington: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at other Amendments which have been put down he will see how it makes sense in respect of the new Schedule and the old Schedule and other parts of the Measure to which I referred.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The House will be grateful for at any rate so much of explanation as has been vouchsafed by the Parliamentary Seceretary. When he is—I was about to say "more usefully"—employed as a member of the Bar, he is accustomed to applying his mind to these complex matters.
The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will recall what happens when Measures like this are put through Parliament with insufficient discussion and insufficient explanation. We have lived through all this before in the


context of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act in which insufficient information was given, in particular of Part VII. It has died an ignominious death, but not before it had brought great difficulty into transactions in land and had puzzled people, councils, surveyors, solicitors and the like, for a number of years before it met that fate.
Therefore, it is desirable in a Measure such as this that the maximum explanation should be given, and at the first reasonable opportunity. When we have a new Clause which refers to
such of the provisions of Parts II and III of that Schedule as are applicable to any subsequent; chargeable act or event
the House cannot decide whether this is an appropriate Clause without looking to see in that Schedule what are those provisions referred to and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) said, looking to see what the "chargeable event" referred to is.
When one sees an immediate doubt, ambiguity, indeed contradiction, raised in the first subsection of the new Schedule printed on page 3189 of the Notice Paper and then sees another new definition introduced,
the previous chargeable act or event".
and then turns to the following page and sees a variety of new definitions of the "original chargeable interest", "the original chargeable unit", "the original chargeable owner", and so on, the matter obviously cries out for clear, early and comprehensible explanation.
Then, when one goes on to discover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, that the Schedule makes it clear, of course, that there may well be minuses when one is making the calculation for the Case C levy, again the House realises that it is on a point very fundamental to the Bill on which an early explanation is requisite. It is even worse than my hon. Friend suggested. Not only is there a minus liable to come out, but there may be a succession of chargeable events and a series of reductions and still there will be a minus at the end of the day. It will still be there.
4.45 p.m.
On page 3192 of the Notice Paper, paragraph 10 (4) of the New Schedule says:
If the primary amount is less than the credit, then—

(a) no levy shall be chargeable in respect of that act or event.…"

That seems to be very reasonable if there is a credit and it has not been extinguished. At least one will not be charged any more. I suppose that with the present Administration one should be thankful even for such small mercies. We go on to (b):
the credit shall thereupon be reduced by an amount equal to the primary amount
of which we have a lesser credit.
Then we go to paragraph 11, which says:
Where the credit is reduced in accordance with any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule … then, in the case of each successive subsequent chargeable act or event affecting the original chargeable interest (or, as the case may be, each successive subsequent chargeable act or event affecting the interest previously affected).
These words, of course, are subject to the doubt referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. The new Schedule goes on to say:
those provisions of this Part of this Schedule and of the regulations shall apply in relation to the credit as so reduced (or as progressively reduced by virtue of this paragraph, as the case may be) until the whole of the credit has been extinguished".
So there will be a succession of subsequent chargeable events still taking bits off the credit and still there will be a credit left. The minus to start with may be so large that it is not extinguished by a series of chargeable events. Suppose that it is never extinguished. This new Schedule seems to come to an untimely stop. Heaven alone knows why it should stop. As one reads paragraph after paragraph one wonders why it should ever stop or come to a definite conclusion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he seems now to be in discussion of the merits of the Schedule rather than the merits of the new Clause.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were embarking upon


the merits of the Schedule I would have finished a very long time ago and would have been extremely short. Nor was I even embarking on the demerits of the Schedule, which would have been a considerably longer exercise.
All I was doing—I respectfully hope that I was within the bounds of order—was, in the context of this new Clause, to seek to show cause why it was impossible for the House to come to an informed conclusion as to whether the Clause should be added to the Statute Book without some examination and certainly some preliminary explanation of the new Schedule. I was making these points in illustration of that proposition.
I believe that the proposition is well founded and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again if he wants us to add this new Clause quickly to the Bill. Would it not be better to essay his comprehensive—and, I hope, comprehensible—explanation of the new Schedule now?

Sir J. Foster: We understood when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, that he ruled that the Schedule could not be discussed in detail with the new Clause. That was on the basis that this was a paving Clause. If the Chair has been unintentionally misled, as there must be a certain amount of taking what the Government say as being correct, in my submission the Government spokesman was wrong and this is not a paving Clause. A paving Clause is a Clause which only says that a Schedule should be inserted to such and such a part. Here the wording of the Clause shows that it is not a paving Clause.
Is there any procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by which, if the Chair has been unintentionally misled, it can retrieve the position? It is not anyone's fault and I quite understand that the Government want to have the Schedule debated in the middle of the night, but it is very wrong. Assuming that I am right, and that the Chair has been misled, and if Erskine May could be turned up to see what is a paving Clause, I think that it will be found that a paving Clause is just an introductory Clause which no one in the world could debate except to say whether there should be "the" or "and".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure, without consideration, whether the phrase

"a paving Clause" is a term of art. In a sense, it is a paving Clause. Paving Clauses take various forms. I was not here when Mr. Speaker gave his Ruling. Therefore, it is not competent for me to say whether he was misled. As I understand, the Schedule cannot be discussed with the new Clause, except with the consent of the whole House. Certain hon. Members have objected to that course.

Hon. Members: Two.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: An objection by only one Member is sufficient. Therefore, we are confined to a discussion of the new Clause in that context and general reference only can be made to the Schedule. It cannot be discussed in detail.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order. The new Clause refers to a Schedule with the title
Credit carried forward from previous chargeable act or event".
There is already a Schedule which has that title, namely, Schedule 6. If the new Clause is agreed to, we shall not be introducing a Schedule which appears on the Notice Paper later as a new Schedule. We shall be confirming Schedule 6 which is already in the Bill. What shall we then do when we reach the Amendment by which the Government seek to insert a new Schedule 6? Already during the course of this stage of the Bill we shall, if we agree to this Clause, have confirmed that Schedule 6 of the Bill as it is at present printed shall remain.

The new Clause makes no mention of the new Schedule which is set out from page 3189 of the Notice Paper onwards. The Clause makes mention of a Schedule in the Bill with a certain title. That is what we shall agree shall remain part of the Bill if we agree to this Clause. This is what makes it so impossible to discuss the Clause without discussing the new Schedule at the same time.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have said that you yourself are in some difficulty here. In that regard, vou only share the difficulty which the whole House is experiencing. I seek your advice as to what course should be adopted. Would it not be right for the sitting to


be suspended or adjourned to give the Government the opportunity to think out what they mean and then explain it to the House? As hon. Members opposite have said that they do not understand what it is all about and as you, with all your experience, have felt obliged to say that we are in a difficulty, we are frustrated to a terrible extent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not interpret what I said. I did not say that I was in difficulty, except as regards answering the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) as to whether this was correctly described as a paving Amendment. The Chair is, as always, anxious to help the House. For that reason, in the debate on the new Clause the Chair has permitted a fairly wide reference to the Schedule so that the effect of the Clause can be appreciated before the House votes upon it. Consistently with references to the new Schedule, I must adhere to the Ruling by Mr. Speaker that it would be contrary to the rules of order and inconvenient to discuss the merits or demerits of the Schedule in detail.

Mr. James Allason: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would not wish to mislead the House. On reading what he said I think that he will find that he suggested that the Minister had made his remark about how satisfactory Schedule 6 was on an Amendment. At the foot of col. 919 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Standing Committee there is this entry:
Question proposed, That the Schedule, as amended, be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill.
An Amendment had previously been made. I then spoke on the Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill" and said this:
I congratulate the Minister on the fact that it reads so much more likely than other Schedules. In fact, in Part III, the provisions for carrying credit forward, it really becomes perfectly simple.
In consequence of that, the Minister said this:
As this is so clear to the hon. Gentleman, I am rot going to run any risk at all. It is going to remain as it is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 4th August, 1966, c. 920.]

That was clearly said on the Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill". I must apologise for this, because it was I who drew the Minister's attention to the fact that there was a simple part of the Bill, but the Minister had to correct it by introducing the new Schedule.
I wonder whether this will be a precedent for paving Amendments not being discussed with the Amendments to which they refer. Are we to go through the whole of Report stage merely dealing with a paving Amendment and agreeing to it and then coming to the substantive Amendment in its turn? It will be extraordinarily inconvenient if that is the way the Government intend to work. However, it is apparently the rule that it has to be a unanimous decision that a paving Amendment can be discussed with the substantive Amendment.
Once more I invite the Government to explain the Schedule. If this is a paving Amendment, will the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary change their minds and agree to the wish expressed on both sides of the House that we should discuss the Schedule at this point? If they are not willing to give that undertaking, in protest we must divide the House.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: On a point of order. Would it not be reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, who, as far as we know, are the only two Members of the House who are maintaining an objection to the Schedule being discussed with the Clause, should reconsider their decision and withdraw their objection? In Standing Committee both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary tried very hard, in very difficult circumstances, to satisfy us about inquiries that were made. The Minister said in Standing Committee that the Schedule would stand as it was, but he has withdrawn the original Schedule and introduced a completely different one.
Many members of the legal profession are unable to understand the Clause and the Schedule and, indeed, the whole Bill. If there is to be a proper discussion of this matter in the House, it is essential that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary withdraw their objection to our


having a discussion in a proper and informed manner. If we are to avoid a fiasco greater than the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, it is essential that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary withdraw their objection and enable us to discuss this matter in a proper manner by taking the Clause and the Schedule together. I ask, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they consent to this request.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have no power to influence the course any hon. Member takes in the debate as to whether he agrees to the Schedule being discussed with the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 151.

Division No. 179.]
AYES
[4.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles


Albu, Austen
Ellis, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
English, Michael
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Alldritt, Walter
Ennals, David
McBride, Neil


Allen, Scholefield
Ensor, David
McCann, John


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
MacColl, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Finch, Harold
Mackintosh, John P.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mapp, Charles


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Floud, Bernard
Marquand, David


Bence, Cyril
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
Mendelson, J. J.


Binns, John
Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian


Bishop, E. S.
Fowler, Gerry
Millan, Bruce


Blackburn, F.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gardner, Tony
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Boardman, H.
Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Boyden, James
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moyle, Roland


Bradley, Tom
Gregory, Arnold
Neal, Harold


Brooks, Edwin
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Newens, Stan


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
0'Malley, Brian


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, William
Oswald, Thomas


Cant, R. B.
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Carmichael, Neil
Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Chapman, Donald
Hazell, Bert
Padley, Walter


Coe, Denis
Heffer, Eric S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Coleman, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hooley, Frank
Park, Trevor


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Horner, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hynd, John
Pries, Willam (Rugby)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Probert, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rankin, John


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dickens, James
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dobson, Ray
Kenyon, Clifford
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rose, Paul


Driberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)




Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Thornton. Ernest
Williams, Alan (Swansea. W.)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Tinn, James
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Skeffington, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Slater, Joseph
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Winnick, David


Small, William
Wallace, George
Winterbottom. R. E


Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woof, Robert


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Zilliacus, K.


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Symonds, J. B.
Whitaker, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Whitlock, William
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Walter Harrison.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Baker, W, H. K.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Batsford, Brian
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pardoe, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bessell, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peyton, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heseltine, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hooson, Emlyn
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Campbell, Gordon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roots, William


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Royle, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, John


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Corfield, F. V.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Summers, Sir Spencer


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Talbot, John E.


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tapsell, Peter


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Loveys, W. H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Thorpe, Jeremy


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Tilney, John


Drayson, G. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Maginnis, John E.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel
Mathew, Robert
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Weatherill, Bernard


Forrest, George
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Fortescue, Tim
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fetter, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, William


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wylle, N. R.


Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar
Mr. George Younger and


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Gurden, Harold

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION IN CERTAIN CASES.)

The provisions of Schedules (Allowance in respect of estate duty) and (Deductions from levy in respect of capital gains tax and corporation tax) to this Act shall have effect in cases specified in those Schedules respectively.—[Mr. Willey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would obviously be of convenience to the House if with this new Clause we could discuss the two Schedules referred to in it. Again I invite the right hon. Gentleman to agree that this should be done.
If you will bear with me for a few more sentences, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the point here is quite different from that on the previous Clause. New Clauses 3 and 4 are substantive. Both of them refer to the Schedules—Allowance in respect of Estate Duty and Deductions from levy in respect of Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax—so that, if we do not discuss these two Schedules with new Clause 2, treating it purely as a paving Clause, we shall, when we come to new Clauses 3 and 4, be in the dark about what we are debating. The point is different from that raised previously, and surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the Schedules being discussed with new Clause 2.

Mr. Willey: In this, as in the other case, I am sure that it is best to take the Schedules in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper. The appropriate place to discuss these provisions will be when we get to the Schedules. There will be plenty of opportunity to do it then.

Mr. Peyton: We have had enough of this. The right hon. Gentleman showed himself most contemptuous of the convenience of the House last time, while claiming that what he was doing was actually for its convenience. But he never consulted the House and remained proof against arguments from both sides. I hope that he will think again and give us a chance to introduce matters which are strictly relevant. I do not understand how, for the second time, he can object to discussing the Schedules at this stage.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The Minister has been short and brusque in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). That is the sort of thing which one may expect, albeit with regret from harassed Ministers in the small hours on technical Bills. But it is only 10 minutes past 5 in the afternoon and the Minister has so far not charged his energy or intellectuality with much explanation to the House. It is most peculiar as well as discourteous that he should not have afforded us any reason or alleged reason for differing from the proposition put by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend put the case clearly and gave a valid reason for saying that

the Schedules should be taken with new Clause 2 and that it could not possibly be discussed without them. The right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself to that reason. He has merely stated that it is better to take the Schedules and Clauses in the order in which they stand on the Order Paper. But that is not a self-evident proposition. It is denied by the constant practice of the House—for example, on every Finance Bill for years.
One wonders where the right hon. Gentleman has been all this time if he thinks that there is any automatic or irrebuttable presumption in favour of following the Order Paper. Will he, therefore, be good enough to give an answer, if he has an answer, to my hon. Friend? If he does not give it, we can only conclude that he has no answer or no sufficient answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) will appreciate that I am bound by the rules of order. I can only depart from the order of Amendments on the Order Paper with the consent of the House.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I entirely accept that and understand it. My reference to the practice of the House on previous occasions was, of course, to a practice sanctioned by the Chair with the express approval of the House.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister did not address his mind to the main point of my invitation that he should give his agreement to discussing the Schedules with new Clause 2, and perhaps I did not make it fully clear to him. I do not see how we can possibly discuss new Clause 2 or new Clauses 3 and 4 when we have not yet dealt with the Schedules to which they refer. New Clauses 3 and 4 are in no way paving Clauses. They cover nearly two sheets of the Order Paper and are substantive Clauses. They have the words
… Schedule (Allowance in respect of estate duty)…
and
… Schedule (Deductions from levy in respect of Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax)…


I presume that these are the Schedules also referred to in new Clause 2, and until we know the contents of the Schedules or have them explained to us, I cannot see how we can deal with substantive new Clauses. If we give the right hon. Gentleman the point and agree that Clause 2 is a paving Clause with which he does not wish to discuss the Schedules, the House will be in an impossible position when we get to new Clauses 3 and 4.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has been long enough in the House to appreciate that difficulties and inconveniences of this kind often arise. I am bound by the rules of order and, however inconvenient it might seem to some hon. Members, I cannot depart from the prescribed rules except by the wish and approval of the House.

Mr. Eyre: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is not a matter of inconvenience to the House alone but of considerable inconvenience to the great mass of citizens outside. The Minister is bringing in a revolutionary Bill with revolutionary Clauses undermining seriously the rights of ordinary people in the ownership of land. He is doing it so far without explanation of the system and without proper discussion of the developments of that system.
Parliament cannot be made a nonsense of in this fashion, and the right hon. Gentleman should no longer shelter behind a subterfuge. He should allow the matter to be discussed in proper fashion by allowing consideration of these Schedules with new Clause 2.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In so far as that intervention is in order, I must point out that it is up to the House itself to change the rules of order if it so wishes to allow the Chairman latitude or discretion in this matter, but until the rules of order are changed, I cannot alter the sequence on the Amendment Paper without the consent of the whole House.

Sir J. Foster: Further to that point of order. I ask your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on new Clauses 3 and 4. I submit that no one can maintain that they are paving Clauses but are substantive Clauses. I ask whether the Ruling of Mr. Speaker with regard to new Clause 1 does not apply to this case, because his

Ruling was given on the basis that new Clause 1 was a paving Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Here we have a number of technical expressions which will have to be interpreted by reference to the Schedules.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it might be better to raise that point of order when we come to new Clause 3.

Mr. Willey: New Clause 2 is a linking Clause. It provides a link in the Bill with the Schedules on Estate Duty and deductions from levy in respect of Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax.
Perhaps this is the right time for me to say that, when this matter was discussed in Standing Committee, I said that I would certainly give the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) as much notice as I could of what would be complicated provisions. On 10th October, I redeemed my promise, saying that I would welcome any comments that he had so that, if possible, I could take them into account before Amendments were put down on the Order Paper. In short, right hon. and hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will be pleased to know that I carried out my undertaking.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a letter which he wrote to me on 10th October. He must have known where I would be during that week, for he knows about party conferences. I did not receive the letter until a week later, which was just over a week before the Bill reached its Report stage, and the letter consisted of seven pages closely typed and a Schedule of 27 printed sheets.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: If the House and the country and professional advisers have been confused over the last Clause, and the Schedule which we did not discuss in connection with it, they will be even more confused and in far greater difficulty over the two Schedules which the Minister now sees fit to introduce at this very late stage of the Bill. We must register the strongest possible protest at the way in which these changes have been introduced. It is no good the Minister saying that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)


a warning in a letter, dated 10th October, but not received until 17th October. We are to have to consider at some time in the early hours of the morning, no doubt deliberately in the early hours of the morning, two highly technical Schedules. One is a Schedule which cuts right across the law relating to Estate Duty and by which we have placed for our consideration 386 lines of small print. The other relates to matters of Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax and is equally technical and consists of some 559 lines of small print.
Whenever my hon. Friend may have received the letter, other hon. Members saw these proposals only a few days ago and when we asked the Leader of the House for longer in which to consider them, our request was rejected. These are technical matters requiring a great deal of professional expertise to understand. I defy their understanding even after a great deal of professional expertise has been applied to them.
This is a most disgraceful way in which the Government have seen fit to treat the House and it is indicative of the whole way in which they have approached the Bill. Nearly 150 Government Amendments are on the Order Paper, 40 of them substantive or additions to existing Clauses. We have six new Clauses and four new Schedules and those four new Schedules alone amount to 1,500 lines and we have had three or four days in which to consider all these matters.
If I were allowed to go into some detail about these Estate Duty and Capital Gains Tax matters, I would graphically underline the ridiculous nature of the law which is now proposed and the discourteous way in which the House has been treated in being asked to consider these matters at such short notice. I have the greatest sympathy with the Minister, who has had put into his lap a Bill which, I feel, he regards most awkwardly and which he brings to the House without any great pleasure. It has evidently been a matter of constant embarrassment to him throughout the Committee stage to explain most of the matters in the Bill. These Schedules should have been referred to professional bodies before coming to the House. We should have the benefit of the views of those professional bodies before us. This treatment is typical of

the very uncertainty of the Government themselves about how to bulldoze a Measure through in furtherance of some sacred party political dogma attached to the nationalisation of the land.
To give just one other example of this situation; we have had two land Commission Bills brought before the House, one printed in the New Year and one after the General Election. Between the old and the new Bill we had six new paragraphs and sub-paragraphs added to Schedule 4 while two of the old paragraphs went out and there was a considerable redrafting of definitions. In Committee there were 13 Government Amendments to that altered Schedule and on Report we have 15 more——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how this argument is relevant to the new Clause.

Mr. Rossi: I was trying to indicate the discourtesy which the House has suffered at the hands of the Government and the impossibility of trying to arrive at a balanced judgment of the validity and worth of these Schedules when, by their persistent and repeated Amendments and alterations, the Government have clearly shown that they themselves do not know where they are going. In the next few months and years the confusion outside the House after the passing of the Bill will be enormous. Nothing will bring greater discredit on the Government than the Bill, which is the one element which gives me the greatest comfort in the whole matter. We only await the day when we will have the opportunity to repeal these Clauses and Schedules root and branch.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the whole Bill on this new Clause.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman in, for him, the comparatively long speech with which he introduced the new Clause, described it as a linking Measure.

Mr. Manuel: Is this a competition in rudeness?

Mr. Peyton: Modesty compels me to admit that if I were to indulge in competition in rudeness with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) I should be beaten by miles.

Mr. Manuel: Come outside and I will show you.

Mr. Peyton: Further modesty compels me to admit that, sitting down, I can never muster even a tithe of the eloquence which the hon. Gentleman finds it so easy to command.
As I was saying, the right hon. Gentleman introduced the new Clause at greater length, and I thought that at least that was a remarkable concession and that some of the things said to him just now were tempting him in the direction of communicating to the House of Commons. He described it as a linking Clause. As far as I can see, what it links is chaos to discourtesy. No possible explanation was offered by the right hon. Gentleman about what he was asking the House to do.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and tell the Minister that communications between the two Front Benches are matters of no interest whatever to back bench Members on either side of the House. It is a most inadequate way of discharging the duty which even the Minister feels it incumbent upon himself to perform to the House to say merely that he has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and asked for his comments. Whether the letter arrived or not is a matter of no importance to me—nor whether it was delivered. What I am concerned with is that the Minister feels that he can escape his duty of explanation to the House of Commons by reference to the fact that he has written to my hon. Friend and invited his comments on what one must politely describe as a set of intolerable gibberish.
5.30 p.m.
We are in the most impossible position. We know what is coming behind this disguised mangy horse, but we cannot discuss it because of the obstinacy of the right hon. Gentleman. He has said dogmatically what accords with his convenience, and yet he remains utterly unresponsive to what the Opposition, indeed what hon. Members on his own side, have said accords with theirs. Coming from the right hon. Gentleman, this is surprising as well as unfair.
I say surprising because I wish to erase any impression that I may have given before that I have any feeling of personal hostility towards the right hon. Gentleman. Far from it. In fact, I have

a good deal of sympathy with him. The Prime Minister has thought up this impossible job for him and now gives him this filthy Measure to pilot through. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman allows his modesty and sense of shame to run away with him and says that this is a paving, a linking amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has all of my sympathy. We on this side of the House feel nothing but pity for him in the invidious, humiliating and mortifying position in which a very fast and fraudulent Government have placed him.

Mr. Graham Page: I accept the invitation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to say something about the new Clause and about the Schedule. The new Clause deals with two Schedules. Is this what the right hon. Gentleman meant by linking? There is no linking at all between the two Schedules. [Interruption.] I hear a voice behind me say that it is stinking and not linking. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by linking. These are two completely distinct Schedules, one dealing with Estate Duty and the other with Capital Gains and Corporation Tax.
There are matters of deep principle in these Schedules. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether he has put these Schedules before any of the professional bodies for advice. Have they been concocted by his Department and put on the Notice Paper just like that, or have there been consultations to discover whether those people who are in practice and who have to put the Schedules into effect have considered them? I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this step, because they would not have reached the Notice Paper in this state if he had.
I will not refer to both Schedules, because reference to one is quite sufficient. I refer to the principle in the Schedule headed "Allowance in respect of estate duty". By the new Clause we are asked to approve of the entry into the Bill of a Schedule dealing with Estate Duty, which requires the personal representatives of a deceased person to calculate the gross principal value of the chargeable interest—that takes up half a page of print. They are then asked to calculate the modified value, which takes up another page of


print. Over the page, they have to calculate the excess gross value and, as if all of that was not enough, they then have to take two pages of print to calculate the net principal value and the amount of Estate Duty attributable to the net principal value. Eventually they reach the effective rate of duty and appropriate allowance. Paragraph 23(1), states:
There shall be calculated what proportion the amount of estate duty attributable to the net principal value of the dutiable interest bears to the gross principal value of that interest.
Paragraph 23(2) states:
That proportion, expressed as a percentage, is in this Schedule referred to as the effective rate of duty.
Paragraph 24 says:
The appropriate allowance shall then be the amount which bears to the excess gross value of the dutiable interest the proportion which constitutes the effective rate of duty.

Mr. Rippon: What does it mean?

Mr. Page: I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would explain what it means. It is a formidable task for personal representatives to undertake. They have to consult professional men. They have to collect together the estate and file the Inland Revenue affidavit, with all of its Schedules, in order to find the total value of the estate and the Estate Duty upon it. In ordinary law, executors are given what is called the executor's year to do this.
Then, and here I come to the point of principle, having to do all of that work and those calculations, we come to a sub-paragraph tucked away under procedure. The sub-paragraph says:
A notice of claim may be served either before or after the service of a notice of assessment of levy in respect of the levy in question, but shall not have effect if served after such a notice of assessment of levy has resulted in an operative assessment of levy.
If one looks back, under procedure, it means that the notice of claim has to be served within two months or it has no effect at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we shall be able to discuss the detail of the Schedule when we come to it.

Mr. Page: With great respect, this is scarcely a detail if we are asked to accept

a Schedule under which personal representatives have to do a great deal of calculation but can only get the benefit of this Schedule if they put in a notice of claim within two months.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a detail of the Schedule which we can discuss when we come to it.

Mr. Page: I bow to your Ruling, but a detail of this sort seems to be a matter of principle as to whether the Schedule means anything at all. If one can only take advantage of it by putting in a notice of claim within two months, yet all of this work has to be done under the Schedule, then the Schedule is just a stupidity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When we come to the Schedule we can consider, if necessary, Amendments for extending the time for putting in notice. That is a detail of the Schedule.

Mr. Page: In this new Clause we are asked to approve of the introduction into the Bill of two Schedules. I am endeavouring to deal only with principles which emerge from them. One of the principles is whether the Schedule has any meaning at all when a claim has to be made in that short time. There are other matters of principle, such as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall give a certificate which is conclusive and deprives the citizen of making any appeal to the courts if the Commissioners are wrong. These are the sort of things which appear in the Schedule, and I do not think they are matters of detail. They are matters which the right hon. Gentleman has not chosen to mention to the House in asking us to pass a Clause which introduces these Schedules.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next new Clause is new Clause No. 3.

Mr. Rossi: On a point of order. This Clause contains references to certificates made under Parts III and IV of the Schedule. Before one can exercise one's judgment as to what this means within the new Clause, one should look at the Schedule in order to see what a certificate under those parts of the Schedule is. Until


we do that, we do not know what we are enacting under new Clause 3. On that basis, may I ask for your ruling as to whether the Schedule is now incorporated by reference into this new Clause and, therefore, falls properly to be discussed by us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In discussing the new Clause, Members are obviously entitled to seek clarification of its effect in so far as reference is made to the Schedules mentioned in it. To that extent, reference to the Schedules mentioned in the new Clause would be in order. The details of the Schedules will be open for debate when we come to the Schedules later.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to the point of order. New Clause No. 3 refers to details of the Schedule. I think that the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was that we should have to refer to the details of the Schedule, and not just to the Schedule in general, in order to understand the Clause. To put a new Clause on the Notice Paper referring to a Schedule which, if your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is correct, we are not to discuss in detail, and mentioning details of that Schedule such as certificates, is something of an abuse of the procedure of the House. We are being prevented from discussing properly a Clause which, by use of the subterfuge of referring to a Schedule later on, is quite unintelligible.
I would ask you to rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if we are not allowed to discuss the details of the Schedule we should not discuss the Clause at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am anxious that the House should understand exactly what is in order and what is not. The debate on the new Clause will be slightly different from the debate which we had on earlier Clauses. In so far as reference to the Schedule is necessary to make the new Clause intelligible, it is obviously in order for any hon. Member to discuss the provisions of the Schedule so as to understand the effect of the new Clause. To that extent, whether they be matters of principle or detail in the Schedule, they are in order for the purpose of understanding the effect of the new Clause and making it intelligible. Debate on the merits and details of the Schedules is

much better postponed until we reach the Schedules.

New Clause.—(ASSESSMENT OF LEVY WHERE RELIEF MAY BE APPLICABLE.)

(1) Where for the purpose of assessing levy in connection with a chargeable act or event—

(a) an allowance under Schedule (Allowance in respect of estate duty) to this Act is or may be required to be made, but no certificate relevant to the assessment of the levy has been issued under Part III of that Schedule, or
(b) the appropriate deduction under Schedule (Deductions from levy in respect of capital gains tax and corporation tax) to this Act is or may be required to be made, but no certificate as to the amount of that deduction has been issued under Part IV of that Schedule,

the Commission may serve a notice of assessment of levy which does not take account of that allowance or deduction.

(2) Where an objection to a notice of assessment of levy (on whatever grounds the objection is made) is referred to the Lands Tribunal under section 47 of this Act, the Tribunal—

(a) shall not postpone a decision on that reference by reason only that the notice does not take account of any such allowance or deduction, if no such certificate as is referred to in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection (as the case may be) has been issued as therein mentioned, and
(b) shall not discharge the notice for that reason.

(3) Where the last preceding subsection applies, then if before the Lands Tribunal gives a decision on the reference in question—

(a) a certificate relevant to the assessment of the levy is issued under Part III of Schedule (Allowance in respect of estate duty) to this Act, or
(b) a certificate under Part IV of Schedule (Deductions from levy in respect of capital gains tax and corporation tax) to this Act is issued indicating that a deduction under that Schedule is required to be made,

that certificate, and the application in pursuance of which it was issued, shall, for the purposes of section 47(2) of this Act, be included among the matters which the Tribunal is required to consider on that reference.

(4) In this and the next following section any reference to the issue of a certificate under Part III of Schedule (Allowance in respect of estate duty) to this Act shall be construed as including a reference to the issue of a certificate in pursuance of any regulations made under Part IV of that Schedule.—[Mr. Willey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The new Clause deals with the problem which may well arise because the determination of Estate Duty or Capital Gains Tax may take longer than the assessment of the levy under the Bill. An allowance or deduction for Estate Duty or Capital Gains Tax may be made. The new Clause provides that the Commission can serve a notice of assessment of levy which does not take account of any allowance or deduction if no certificate has been issued, though it is known that an allowance or deduction may be required to be made.

The new Clause also deals with the question of the Lands Tribunal. If an objection to a notice of assessment is taken to the Lands Tribunal, the tribunal disregards the question of a certificate. Subsection (3) of the new Clause deals with the situation which could arise where a certificate relating to the deduction or allowance may be issued during the proceedings before the Lands Tribunal. It provides that this is a matter which the Tribunal can then take into account.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Rossi: I should like to pursue the question of the certificate which is mentioned several times in the new Clause and to which the Lands Tribunal is required to have particular regard if it comes before it when considering questions about the amount of the levy.
According to paragraph 28 of the Schedule on page 3199 of the Notice Paper, the certificate issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall be conclusive evidence of the matters contained in the certificate. But, as we shall see in a moment, a number of factors will have to be taken into account and a series of complicated arithmetical problems will have to be worked out. None of this will be necessarily known to the person applying for the certificate. If there is an error in the figures in the certificate, he cannot challenge it, because the certificate is conclusive proof of what is contained in it. It seems wrong that one arm of the Government which is concerned with raising and collecting revenue should be in a position to give a certificate which, by itself, is conclusive evidence and which cannot be challenged by the person to whom it relates. He cannot go to a court of law to have it upset or investigated.
I turn to the other matters which have to be contained in the certificate. Part II

of the Schedule deals first with something which is called the "gross principal value". That means, broadly, the probate value of the land which is the subject matter of the levy which the Commission is trying to raise. That is a relatively simple matter to ascertain, because on the death of a person valuers for probate or Estate Duty purposes make a valuation and after negotiation a value is accepted by the Estate Duty office. That is the probate value.
Having discovered the gross principal value, the Inland Revenue, when preparing its certificate, has to arrive at another figure. It has to find what is known as the "net principal value". It does that by deducting from the probate value any mortgage which may have existed on the property in question. That is easy enough to understand. It is standard practice for Estate Duty purposes. But, in addition, it is required under paragraph 14(1) of the Schedule to deduct so much of the funeral expenses and so much of the debts and liabilities of the deceased
as for the purposes of estate duty leviable on his death was or is allowable as a deduction from the value of the dutiable interest.
That immediately raises problems because such matters as funeral expenses and the debts and liabilities of the deceased are not chargeable against a particular asset of the estate, a particular piece of land. Only the mortgage on the land is chargeable against it. The funeral expenses, and so on, are chargeable against the estate as a whole.
It may well be that this paragraph requires the Inland Revenue to apportion the funeral expenses, the debts and other liabilities of the estate——

Mr. Costain: It does not say so.

Mr. Rossi: —as between the dutiable interest and the other assets of the estate; but, as has just been said behind me—the point has been anticipated—the paragraph does not say that. Therefore, we are entitled to ask whether the Minister means that the whole of the debts of an estate—all the liabilities of the deceased—are to be deducted from the principal value of the one asset that becomes subject to the levy, in order to arrive at the net principal value. That is how the paragraph can be read. If the Minister intends an apportionment, he should have said so.
This is a Committee matter, but I make no apology for raising a Committee matter on Report on the Floor of the House, because this is a Clause that should have been dealt with in Committee and not on the Floor of the House. If now we are raising difficulties for the Minister because of that, I make no apology whatever. Our intention here is to expose to the country at large what a ridiculous Bill this is.
To arrive at the net principal value, I express it as an algebraic equation: GPV for gross principal value, minus, in brackets, mortgage, plus FE for funeral expenses, plus debts, over X, the unknown quantity—is it a proportion of the whole?—close bracket, equals NPV or net principal value. That is one stage of the exercise through which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have to go to issue the certificate.
Now, however, they are concerned with other problems and other matters. When we turn to pages 3197 and 3198 of the Amendment Paper, we find that they have to find the Estate Duty rate which is applicable to the net principal value. To do that, they have to take the original rate of the estate, if I understand it correctly. The Minister will forgive me if I get this wrong, having seen it at relatively few hours' notice. Having done that, the Commissioners have to disregard any allowance for Estate Duty purposes which has arisen because of agricultural property or which has arisen for business purposes under Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1954, but shall have regard to marginal relief under the Finance Act, 1914.
When they have done all that, the Commissioners have the rate of duty leviable and they have to multiply the net principal value by that figure. Having done that, they then have to express it as a proportion of the gross principal value. Having done that, again they must express it as a percentage.
I therefore continue my equation by multiplying NPV—which we know is GPV minus, in brackets, mortgage, plus FE and debts, over X, close bracket—by the rate of Estate Duty subject to the variation in the 1954, 1914 and 1925 Finance Acts as they may or may not apply. We then put that over the gross principal value and multiply by 100.

When we have done that, to and behold we have found the effective rate of duty.

Mr. Eyre: Hurrah !

Sir Mannar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend should not interrupt in the middle of this.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I only wanted to ask the cost that every Inland Revenue office will have to find to get a computer to work all this out.

Mr. Rossi: The Minister will, no doubt, take due note of that and let us know later in the debate.
Having arrived at the effective rate of duty, the Inland Revenue will then have another little mathematical exercise to perform. The Revenue has to find the excess gross value of the estate. It finds the excess gross value of the estate by going back to the gross principal value and deducting from it, not the net principal value—nothing as simple as that—but an altogether new concept, the modified value.
One arrives at the modified value in a number of different ways depending under which case number one comes. To give an example, when dealing with a sale of land one has to go back to the last relevant disposition to get one's modified value. Having got one's modified value, one subtracts it from the gross principal value. Having subtracted it, one is then given the excess gross value. Having got the excess gross value, one multiplies it by one's effective rate of duty—which, as we all know, is GPV minus, in brackets, mortgage, plus FE, plus debts, over X, multiplied by the rate as varied by the three Acts, over GPV, multiplied by 100.
When that is done, one then has one's appropriate allowance which is deducted from the levy. The certificate of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is conclusive evidence that the sum has been done correctly and that they have left nothing out or have not added in the date or done something of that kind.
That is the sort of nonsense to which every man and woman who owns any house or the smallest plot of land, who has the misfortune to suffer death in the family and has an inheritance, will be put.


This is what the Government are thrusting upon them. It has taken me several hours of very close study at short notice to read through the 387 lines of the Schedule, and I think that I am just beginning to have a glimmer of an understanding. But that happens to be because it is part of my business outside the House to deal with matters of this kind. I assure the Minister that if I find considerable difficulty in this matter, a great many also of my professional collagues will find difficulty. To the average man in the street it will be completely unintelligible.
I repeat that it is disgraceful that this should be brought before the House at three or four days' notice for our serious consideration. How can we decide on a matter of this kind, know what all the answers are and understand all these various figures, formulae and algebraic symbols which I have been putting to the House? How can we arrive at a balanced judgment on complicated technical matters of this kind, in which we need the assistance of the best professional minds? How can we do it in this short space of time? It is ridiculous, a discourtesy to the House and a shame on the Government.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I have seldom known, in the time I have been a Member of the House of Commons, an occasion on which a back-bench Member of the Opposition got up and gave such a lucid explanation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—of an intolerable mixture introduced from the other side of the House. It seems to me that common gratitude demands that the Minister should make a substantial allotment out of his bounteous salary to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) who placed the Minister immensely in his debt. I was not able, I must confess, to follow all my hon. Friend's algebraic formulae without the aid of a blackboard.
Perhaps the next time he is compelled, by that courtesy which we know was born into him, and feels obliged to do this he will seek the permission of the Chair to bring a blackboard with him, because if the Government are to go on like this the need for such occasions as this is going to be multiplied, because all our requests, put in varying degrees of eloquence, for elucidation have met with no response whatever from the Minister. I

must say that this new Clause, and the cargo which accompanies it, is quite intolerable.
There is only one short point I wish to make, and I understand that I can make it in view of the more liberal Ruling, given by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Irving, and it arises out of words of the new Schedule, Allowance in Respect of Estate Duty. In Part III paragraph 30(1), to be found on page 3200 of the Amendment Paper, has these words:
A certificate issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under this Part of this Schedule shall be construed as having been issued on the assumptions specified in paragraph 27(1) of this Schedule"—
which I do not propose to read out—
and shall have effect without prejudice to any question whether those assumptions are correct or not.
What I want to ask the Minister, for I am in the same position as all of us and I have had no time or chance to get very much professional advice on this point, is this simple question, whether that provision is as nasty and obnoxious as it appears to be.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I want to address myself for a moment to the same provisions which have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but, like him, I should like, as I am sure all hon. Members would, to express appreciation of the masterly and lucid explanation of the Estate Duty provisions which has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and warmly to second the very proper suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil as to the practical way in which the Minister could express his appreciation on this matter.
I rise only on a relatively narrow point. Subsection (3) of this new Clause says:
Where the last preceding subsection applies, then if before the Lands Tribunal gives a decision on the reference in question (a) a certificate relevant to the assessment of the levy is issued under Part III of Schedule"—
that is, the Estate Duty Schedule—
or (b) a certificate under Part IV of Schedule (Deductions from levy in respect of capital gains tax and corporation tax)… that certificate, and the application in pursuance of which it was issued, shall, for the purposes of section 47(2) of this Act, be included among the matters which the Tribunal is required to consider on that reference.


I shall be grateful if the Minister would perhaps just tell the House how he envisages the procedure in regard to such a case arising.
As I understand it, and I am looking at paragraph 31 of the Corporation Tax Schedule at page 3210, the same page as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil referred to,
A certificate issued by an inspector under this Part of this Schedule shall be construed as having been issued on the assumption specified in paragraph 29(1) of this Schedule and shall have effect without prejudice to any question whether that assumption is correct or not.
There then follows a provision in regard to the conclusive evidence nature of the certificate to which reference has been made, but the extent to which it is conclusive evidence is expressly stated to be
Subject to the preceding sub-paragraph".
That, as I read it, means it is not conclusive in regard to the assumption made by the inspector that the opinion of the Commission is correct on any matter arising under Part I or Part II of that Schedule in respect of any question or act or event which constitutes a taxable disposal.
That does seem at first blush—and like other hon. Members I have not had an opportunity yet, I fear, to make a detailed study of these provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey has clearly made—to open up a possible, fairly wide, area in which the certificate of the inspector will not be conclusive; and these matters will presumably, therefore, be justiciable before the Lands Tribunal in any proceedings arising out of an objection to the notice of assessment for the levy.
That, so far as it goes, is gratifying, and I see the Minister nods assent at what I have said the position would be. That, as I say, so far as it goes, is gratifying. But, of course, procedurally it may give rise in practice, I think, to some difficulty, because the duty placed by subsection (3) of the new Clause is mandatory, that is to say, the Tribunal "shall" take into account the certificate with this wide area of possible dispute and justiciability among the matters which it is considering.
It may very well be, of course, that the moment when the certificate arrives is the moment which exists in, I think, all cases in the Lands Tribunal, certainly all the cases of which I have cognisance, between the end of the hearing and the giving of the award, because in the Lands Tribunal, for obvious reasons, judgment is reserved, and there is, therefore, that period. So if the certificate arrives during that interim period, what then, procedurally, is to happen? Is this something which is to be catered for by some amendment of the Lands Tribunal's rules by way of reconvening the Tribunal for the hearing? Or what is the position to be? Otherwise this Clause is placing a mandatory duty on the Tribunal to take into its consideration matters on which it will not have the assistance either of evidence or of submission by counsel engaged in the case.
I cannot feel that would be what the new Clause is intended to mean, but it does seem to me to be the position which will result from it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary will add a word of further explanation in regard to that point.

Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps I could help the House on some of the points which have been raised. I do not want to go too far into all of them. I think I would be out of order if I tried to answer all the points by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) because some of those can arise, in fairness I think he will agree, only on consideration of the Schedule itself. One does not want to anticipate that discussion.

Mr. Rossi: On a point of order. I am prepared to give the Minister till the early hours of the morning to give the answers.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If it was in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) to make the points he did, I should have thought it to be in order for the Minister to reply to them.

Mr. Skeffington: When I need the assistance of the hon. Gentleman I will let him know. I have been here for some lime and have not yet arrived at that particular point.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put my point of order to you, and the brusque


way in which it was dealt with by the hon. Gentleman does not come into it. Is it not a fact in this House that, if a point is in order when it is made, the answer to it is equally in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): This is a very difficult question for me to answer. The point about the Schedule has been clearly made by my predecessors. Hon. Members must leave me to decide whether anything that the hon. Gentleman says is out of order.

Mr. Skeffington: I was not greatly encouraged by the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmer Nicholls), but I shall try to be as informative as I can.
It may be helpful to the House to know, in regard to the conclusiveness of the certificate, that there is at least one very good precedent, which is to be found in Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1894, where, in subsection (3), a certificate of the Commissioners shall be conclusive evidence.

Sir J. Foster: rose—

Mr. Skeffington: I am trying to be helpful. If I am to be interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) and other hon. Members at every sentence, it will not be easy.

Sir J. Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has imputed to me that I am trying to interrupt him on an unimportant point. I was trying to correct him on what he was saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, I am afraid.

Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps at a more convenient point, I might give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Hornsey raised points about the calculations which are referred to in detail in the Schedule. That is a new Schedule, appearing on the Order Paper as Amendment No. 185. I do not want to rehearse all the points which the hon. Gentleman made, and again it would be out of order, but if he looks with his usual acumen at paragraphs 13 and 14, he will see broadly what they provide for. They provide for the deduction of any mortgage which is deductible for Estate Duty purposes. The Schedule does not spell out in detail

all the matters which will be the subject of the calculation, because the usual Estate Office practice can be assumed to be followed, as it is in other cases. Paragraph 14 also shows the deduction of other debts and liabilities, including funeral expenses and so on in particular.
The hon. Gentleman then made a point about the certificate, and it is really the point mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smih). If I may say so, he was quite correct in his assumptions. The certificate gives the gross principal values and the effective rate of duty, but the calculations from the Commission will be subject to appeal if there is disagreement. It is only into those two matters that the certificate goes.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if there was a mistake. The answer is that always, if there is a mistake, administrative action is taken. If an assurance is required, I am prepared to give it in respect of a mistake which is proved in the wording of the certificate itself.
These provisions will be seen very much better later in our discussions. They are a very valuable addition to the levy payer and arise again as a result of second thoughts and a new opportunity in the two new Schedules, so that all matters are now dealt with together, instead of as they were before. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman complained that one had to look at four Clauses. Now the matters are all together in the two Schedules, and I would have hoped, therefore, that we might have received his congratulations.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The Parliamentary Secretary has skated over a lot of thin ice, but he has not dealt with the point of the Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) took the House down the difficult path of the certificate. I should like to go back to the first words which the right hon. Gentleman used when, very briefly, he moved the new Clause. He said that the determination of the Estate Duty may take longer than the assessment of the levy and that that was the purpose of the Clause. That means to say that the Estate Duty authorities can take their time—perhaps a matter of six


years—to calculate what the certificate should say and what figures should be put into it.
In the meantime, the Commission can assess the levy. The Commission can then serve notice, and that notice can become the operative assessment, with the levy becoming due and payable from the chargeable owner while the Estate Duty authorities are still trying to work out the Estate Duty allowance. The matter can be taken before the Lands Tribunal on the basis of the Commission's assessment, and the Estate Duty authorities can still go on calculating the figure. They are left in the background, and no consideration is taken of them. Finally, through the procedure of assessing a levy, giving notices and so on, when the Commission come down on the chargeable owner for payment, he has to pay no matter what allowance he may receive later.
Why should there be payment of the levy simply because the Estate Duty authorities are too slow in giving the certificate? Why should the levy be taken out of a man's pocket when it is quite possible that the allowance which he will get out of the Estate Duty certificate will exceed the levy?
That applies not only to the Estate Duty Schedule. It applies also to the Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax Schedule. The Inland Revenue authorities are required to give a certificate in that case of the allowance which the levy payer can have against the levy, but the levy payer can be made to pay the levy and has to wait for that certificate to get his relief against that money. He has to pay the money into the Exchequer and leave it lying there until he can get some relief.
It must be remembered that we are not dealing with inspectors of taxes here, with the Inland Revenue so far as the assessment of levy is concerned, or with those Treasury servants whom we have come to know over the years. We are dealing here with a new body of appointed civil servants making up a Land Commission. That Commission is not there only to impose a levy and collect it. It has power to take a person's property from him without notice or inquiry and without any deed or document signed by that person. It is a body

which not only can take all those rights from a citizen but can impose a levy on him at the same time and make him wait for his allowance. The Commission can say to him, "We want the full levy from you now, and you may get your relief from it at some time."
That is the purpose of the Clause. It is one which ought never to have appeared in the Bill. If a man is entitled to relief from levy, the charging of him with the levy should wait until the relief has been decided. It is not for him to decide what the relief is. It is for the Estate Duty authorities or the Inland Revenue to decide. If they are slow, the levy should not be taken from him in the meantime. The Clause is a thoroughly bad one.

Mr. W. Baxter: I was greatly impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). I think that the House must be very grateful to him for his lucid explanation of the details of the Clause. It is only right that we should compliment someone who is prepared to devote his time and energy to giving the House a proper interpretation of what is before it, and, irrespective of political complexions, I think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to get at least my compliments for the work that he has done.
What I am concerned about is that there are some small estates, some people who have a small piece of land, or some small property, and perhaps all their resources have been put into it. I am afraid that, having coped with the full rigours of the law resulting from the setting up of this new organisation, and having paid all the penalties which might be placed on their shoulders, they will find that after having paid a tax here, an imposition there, and legal and other expenses elsewhere, they are in debt at the end of the day.

This Clause may cause great hardship to some sections of the community, because, when all is said and done, there are many people who own small estates and small properties. It is not the majority of the population who own the larger estates. I put it no higher than that. I am wondering whether, without any real intention to do so, by pressing this to its logical conclusion the Minister may be putting a heavy imposition on


people who should not be asked to bear this burden.

If we pass legislation we must make it reasonably fair and equitable, and I want to be told whether there are minimum standards for this whole rigmarole. I have met many people who, even without this imposition, have great difficulty in winding up estates, and this is another problem with which they will have to contend.

Nobody like myself can possibly understand this Clause. It takes a gentleman in the profession to which the hon. Member for Hornsey belongs to assess the full implications of it. It may be that the Minister will include at the end of the Bill a list of the people who understand this Measure, so that we will be able to look at the list and say, "A, B and C, understand it, or at least they have received the Minister's stamp of approval", and then consult them.

I do not say that lightly, because for many years I was a member of a local authority, and I know the great difficulty which county clerks and their assistants had in trying to give a reasonable interpretation of the previous Act. This Measure is as complicated, if not more so, than the previous one, and it may have some considerable backwash throughout the country in respect of the people to whom I have referred.

I repeat that I am indebted to the hon. Member for Hornsey for his point of view of the Clause.

Mr. Willey: My hon. Friend has grasped the point at issue. It is quite a simple one. Let us consider a typical case in which there may be a substantial amount of levy. We are saying that we will make an allowance or deduction in respect of capital gains or Estate Duty. Some minor adjustment may be involved. There is no reason why the Commission, carrying out its work expeditiously, and making the operative assessment, should not proceed.

Mr. Eyre: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that thousands of solicitors throughout the country will be concerned in carrying out actions of this kind relating to quite small estates to decide whether the levy should be 2s. 9d. or 1s. 4d.? Has the right hon. Gentleman

borne in mind the total amount of effort which will be required to make these calculations, and the total amount of costs which will have to be borne, on quite small estates? Will he consider an exemption of, say, £5,000 of Estate Duty, so that we do not repeat the folly of the Capital Gains Tax?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre). The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) made a very fair, and, I thought, impressive intervention in this discussion, and I felt that the reply which he received from the right hon. Gentleman amounted to nothing at all.
Parliament is now on the Report stage of this Bill. The object of having a Report stage is to enable careful scrutiny to be given to things which have been considered in Committee so that people can understand what they are all about. This sort of things affects every estate which comes under the purview of probate. I do not think that the House can allow itself to be fobbed off in the way that is being attempted by the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary. This is just not good enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) made out a case which must be answered if Parliament is to mean anything. His argument was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). As things stand, the House is being asked to pass a Clause which is incomprehensible. We know Parliament and its procedures well enough to know that we cannot always expect the Minister in charge of a complex Measure such as this to be able to give clear decisive answers to complicated arguments such as those presented by my hon. Friend, and supported by the hon. Gentleman, but the least that we expect—and in the past we have usually had this—is that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House that the Government recognise the anomalies which have been pointed out, that they are not able to give a clear answer now, but that they will look at the matter with sympathy to see whether, when the Bill goes to another place, the Clause can be amended so that it can be understood by the people whom it will affect.
I do not want to argue the technical details. I should find myself in pretty poor shape if I were to try. I have heard arguments advanced by people who are professionally qualified to discuss the matter, and I find that this is all above my head. Nevertheless, I am likely to be affected by this, and we have a responsibility to the country not to pass Measures of this kind which are understood by only a small clique of people who are specially trained to look at abstruse Measures such as this and understand them. I have a great regard for my colleagues, but I do not want to put my fate and that of my constituents, in their hands. Parliament ought to understand how the Bill will work.
The Parliamentary Secretary was rude to me. He is not usually rude. It is, perhaps, a sign that he feels that he has been put in an invidious position in being asked to get this Clause through. I do not believe that the House ought to accept the Clause without at least an indication from the Treasury Bench that the Government will look at it again, either to present the case in a way that can be understood, or to amend the Clause so that it can be understood.
This is not a matter of technicalities. This is a matter for argument. There are not many Members present in the Chamber, but this Measure will affect everybody in the country, and if Parliament is to do its job it is not good enough to say, "A very clever and able speech was made by the hon. Member for Hornsey, and the right hon. Gentleman adroitly passed it over and smoothed things out. What a good Parliamentarian he is". I have met the right hon. Gentleman on several occasions, for example, when we were discussing the Sugar Bill, and the abattoir Bill, which were just as difficult as this Measure, and I know how good he is at smoothing things over and getting away with it. We introduced the abattoir Bill when we were the Government. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude is good enough when we are dealing with a Measure such as this one.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman—or if not him his hon. Friend who has been given the responsibility of getting this Clause through the House—to tell us that he is impressed with the arguments which

have been put forward from both sides of the House, and that before the Bill becomes an Act, or before it goes to the other place, he will do all that he can to set out the position so that it can be clearly understood, or amend the Bill.

6.30 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: When my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Har-mar Nicholls) was speaking I was interested to hear that the right hon. Gentleman, at a previous stage in his career, had been connected with the abattoir Bill. That is a clear indication of where this Clause ought to go.
I always enjoy listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who speaks with great courtesy and clarity. But if the Minister were unwise enough to accept the hon. Member's suggestion that a list should be added at the back of the Bill giving the names of those people who understand it, I am afraid that that list would be conspicuous by the absence of the names of the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary. I say that with great kindness and no ill-feeling, because very few people understand the Bill.

Mr. Rippon: Nobody.

Sir D. Glover: It is therefore quite understandable that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have been unable to tell the House what the Clause means. They do not understand it any more than anyone else. Yet here we are, as a House of Commons, passing legislation which will be almost unworkable because there will never be enough people who know how to make it work.
Like my hon. Friend, I do not pretend to be a solicitor; I speak as an ordinary Member of Parliament. As I understand the Clause—or as I partly understand it—it contains the same obnoxious feature that applied in the case of the Bill which brought in the Selective Employment Tax, under which the State grabs money from the people and agrees that at a future date—if conditions are right—that money shall be repaid, seizing thereby money to which it has no right, and on which it pays no interest. If any private trader endeavoured to act in such a way he would quickly finish up in the courts.
Yet this is a provision which has been carried out twice in a month by the Government. They are taking levy money, and at some future date—how long in the future nobody knows—the person or the estate concerned may receive more back than has been paid. These are the economics of bedlam, as I coined the phrase during the debates on the Finance Bill. The great weakness of the Government is that they always think that they are dealing with millionaires. They say "These people have vast estates; it does not matter if we take some of their money away from them. They have plenty." As has been said, an enormous number of small estates will be involved which will not have the money to pay to the Commission. In that case the other part of the estate, which might be a hereditament in which somebody is to live, will have to be sold to find the necessary money.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman either to make this much clearer to the House of Commons or—as I suggested in the first place—to take it to the abattoir and do with it what should have been done before we started discussing it this afternoon.

Mr. Clegg: I want to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). He referred to people who like to do probate work themselves. There are many such people, and they receive an enormous amount of help from the Probate Office. They are given a leaflet with the necessary form, telling them how to fill it in. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to devise an explanatory leaflet explaining what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has explained today. To put that in writing and distribute it to the public would be an absolute nonsense. People would not understand it.
The other thing that the right hon. Gentleman might tell us is what steps he is taking to train those civil servants who will form part of the Land Commission in their duties in understanding the Bill. Under the Finance Bill we have already had civil servants being paid an extra £100 for understanding what, compared with this, is an extremely simple and noncomplicated form. If the right hon. Gentleman could give us an indication of

the steps that he is taking to make this system work it would be helpful.
My hon. Friends and I, together with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire, are convinced that, unless something is done, when the Bill becomes an Act there will be absolute bedlam, and that the machinery of administration, which is carried out not only by civil servants but by many professional men, will grind to a nasty halt.

Sir J. Foster: When the Minister explained what the Clause was supposed to do, in a very sketchy fashion, he referred to subsections (1), (2) and (3). He did not—and I imagine that this was by design—refer to subsection (4), which says, in effect, that a certificate issued under that subsection shall have effect as if it were issued in pursuance of Regulations. If we turn to the relevant Schedule we find that those Regulations are very wide, and can provide for almost anything. The effect is very strange. What the supplementary provisions under Part IV of that Schedule say is if the conditions of paragraph I do not apply—and that means that the whole Schedule does not apply—nevertheless Regulations can be made under Part IV applying the Schedule provided that certain similar but not exactly similar conditions apply. In other words, we have the Schedule, in paragraph 1, saying that if certain conditions exist relating to the death of a person six years before, and to interest passing in land, and so on, an allowance is payable in respect of Estate Duty. Part IV says that if one or more conditions specified in paragraph 1 of Part I are not fulfilled Regulations can be made for the issue of a certificate under Part IV where the conditions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) apply. If one reads those paragraphs one finds that they are like the provisions of paragraph 1(1) of Part I of the Schedule, but not exactly the same. The Minister has not explained how, in effect, he has added another Schedule of equal length, with conditions which are not the same as in paragraph 1.
It is a very unwise form of delegated legislation. It means that we have Regulations which are very wide indeed, being
subject to such exceptions and modifications, and together with any such additional provisions, as may be so specified.


In this connection I want to refer to the very telling point made by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). If two deaths involving small estates occur, one very soon after another, according to paragraph 34
those provisions shall have effect in relation to those deaths cumulatively so as to require or enable the appropriate allowance to be made by reference to each of them.
That is in favour of the person who has to pay the levy. But we can imagine a dispute occurring about the size of the allowance.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain, in simple language, the effects of Part IV and to draw the attention of the House to the conditions that he had in mind when he drafted these provisions, to the effect that the conditions in paragraph (1) are not fulfilled but the conditions here are fulfilled. I do not want to weary the House by reading out (a), (b) and (c), but they are very like the conditions in sub-setcion (1). In fact (c) seems to me to be exactly the same.
Therefore, the absurd result of saying that, in Part IV, if one of the conditions in subsection (1) is not fulfilled but if the conditions in (a), (b) and (c) are fulfilled, one can issue new certificates under new Regulations and do whatever one likes. Then we find that one of the conditions of (c) is the same as in subsection (1). I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain what happens there.

Mr. Allason: I hope that the Minister has now got the feeling of the House about the Clause. There is still time for him to give an undertaking that he realises that he has put himself in an awkward position. There is, happily, another place where Amendments could be made. If he would give that undertaking, he would make hon. Members on both sides a great deal happier.

The Clause is a far cry from the great idea of the Government that they would tax land speculators out of existence. They said that they would get social justice this way, but the sort of social justice we are getting is that someone with a small estate would have to face this tax on top of Estate Duty and other taxes. A chargeable act or event in this respect does not signify somebody deliberately speculating. It is somebody dying which creates the event.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will have second thoughts. The principle of grabbing a levy or tax which is not due and then graciously giving it back later is thoroughly obnoxious to the House. I hope that, even at this last moment, the Government will show some sign of relenting.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 127.

Division No. 180.]
AYES
[6.43 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Albu, Austen
Coe, Denis
Ellis, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Alldritt, Walter
Concannon, J. D.
Ennals, David


Anderson, Donald
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ensor, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fernyhough, E.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Finch, Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Beaney, Alan
Dalyell, Tarn
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W.)


Bence, Cyril
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda E.)
Floud, Bernard


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Ford, Ben


Boardman, H.
Delargy, Hugh
Forrester, John


Booth, Albert
Dell, Edmund
Fowler, Gerry


Boyden, James
Dempsey, James
Galporn, Sir Myer


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dewar, Donald
Gardner, Tony


Bradley, Tom
Dickens, James
Garrett, W. E.


Brooks, Edwin
Dobson, Ray
Garrow, Alex


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Doig, Peter
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunn, James A.
Gourlay, Harry


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dunnett, Jack
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Gregory, Arnold


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th C'b'e)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)




Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Maxwell, Robert
Rose, Paul


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce
Rowland, Christopher (Merideh)


Hannan, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Haseldine, Norman
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hazell, Bert
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Henig, Stanley
Moyle, Roland
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Neal, Harold
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stan
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Homer, John
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon
Skeffington, Arthur


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric
Small, William


Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Symonds, J. B.


Hynd, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Thomas, George (Cardiff. W.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda. W.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Padley, Walter
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Tinn, James


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Palmer, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Kenyon, Clifford
Pannenll, Rt. Hn. Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Lawson, George
Park, Trevor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Leadbitter, Ted
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pearson, Arthur Pontypridd)
Watkhis, David (Consett)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pentland, Norman
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Loughlin, Charles
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Whitlock, William


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McCann, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


MacColl, James
Probert, Arthur
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Macdonald, A. H.
Randall, Harry
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mackintosh, John P.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Zilliacus, K.


MacPherson, Malcolm
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)



Manuel, Archie
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mapp, Charles
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper


Awdry, Daniel
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Baker, W. H. K.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Batsford, Brian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baxter, William
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Neave, Airey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hesettine, Michael
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pardoe, John


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hordern, Peter
Peyton, John


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis


Corfield, F. V.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Costain, A. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kimball, Marcus
Roots, William


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Royle, Anthony


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Loveys, W. H.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Farr, John
Mackenzie, Atasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fisher, Nigel
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fortescue, Tim
Maginnis, John E.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Foster, Sir John
Marten, Nell
Tilney, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek







Webster, David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitelaw, William
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. George Younger.


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(REVISION OF ASSESSMENT ON ISSUE OF CERTIFICATE AS TO ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION.)

(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where—

(a) a notice of assessment of levy has resulted in an operative assessment of levy, and
(b) in consequence of the issue of a certificate under Part III of Schedule (Allowance in respect of estate duty) or Part IV of Schedule (Deductions from levy in respect of capital gains tax and corporation tax) to this Act the principal amount of levy specified in the assessment falls to be reconsidered, with a view to its being either reduced or increased.

(2) Any person who has paid, or would be liable to pay. levy payable in accordance with the assessment may at any time before the end of the period of six years beginning with the date of service of the notice of assessment ot levy, make an application in writing to the Commission for relief.

(3) If, on any application under the last preceding subsection, the Commission find that, by reason of the matters to which the application relates,—

(a) an allowance or deduction under one of those Schedules falls to be made and was not taken into account in the assessment, or
(b) such an allowance or deduction taken into account in the assessment falls to be increased.

and that accordingly the assessment was excessive or no levy was properly chargeable, the Commission shall give, by way of repayment or otherwise, such relief as is appropriate in the circumstances.

(4) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 54 of this Act shall have effect in relation to any application under subsection (2) of this section as they have effect in relation to an application under that section, as if in those subsections any reference to varying the notice of assessment of levy by reducing the principal amount of the levy included a reference to discharging that notice and giving such consequential directions as the Lands Tribunal may determine to be appropriate.

(5) If the certificate is a revised certificate issued under paragraph 32 of Schedule (Deductions from levy in respect of capital gains tax and corporation tax) to this Act, and in accordance with that certificate a deduction previously taken into account in the assessment falls to be reduced, section 55 of this Act shall apply as if the circumstances in which the deduction falls to be so reduced were circumstances to which that section applies.

(6) In this section any reference to a deduction previously taken into account in the assessment includes a reference to a deduction in respect

of which relief has already been given under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of this section; and anyreference to reducing the principal amount of the levy specified in the assessment shall, where the appropriate reduction would be equal to, or would exceed, that principal amount, be construed as a reference to cancelling it.—[Mr. IVilley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Having added the previous new Clause to the Bill, the House will certainly welcome this new Clause, which is concerned with taking into account a certificate for an allowance or deduction after a notice of assessment has become operative. In other words, the new Clause provides that the assessment can be reopened in these circumstances and the appropriate repayment made. It also deals with the possibility of a revised certificate for a deduction in respect of Capital Gains Tax or Corporation Tax being given. I hope that, with that explanation, the House will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Rossi: We welcome the new Clause because it brings a little relief into a generally penal, oppressive and confiscatory Bill. At least here we see that the Commission is seeking to give to itself power, within a period of six years from the assessment of the levy, to make a repayment of the levy if an allowance should have been made against it but if, for one reason or another, the claim was not brought in at the right time. That is my understanding of the object of the new Clause.
However, it requires that two conditions must be fulfilled before the Commission may exercise its discretion in either repaying some of the levy or giving such other relief as it thinks fit. These two conditions are contained in subsection (1) of the new Clause and they are that, first, there must have been an operative assessment of levy and, secondly, a certificate of the kind which we were discussing earlier. That must have been issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Until those two conditions have been fulfilled, the Commission may not grant relief.
The very fact that the Commission is being given power to grant relief appears to presuppose that a claim for an allowance was not made at the right time; because the Commission is being given six years after the levy in which to grant this relief. Bearing that in mind, the question arises, on looking at the Schedule, whether this can be done. I mentioned this to the Minister a few days ago and I hope that he now has the answer. It is interesting to note that under Part II of the proposed new Schedule "Allowance in respect of Estate Duty" it is stated:
(2) A notice of claim may be served either before or after the service of a notice of assessment of levy in respect of the levy in question, but shall not have effect if served after such a notice of assessment of levy has resulted in an operative assessment of levy.
Under Clause 47, a notice of assessment of levy becomes an operative assessment within two months of the service of the notice, if no counter notice has been served. We may assume—as we are discussing in the new Clause the circumstances where an allowance has not been claimed at the right time—that a counter notice has not been dealt with and has been overlooked. This means that within two months of the notice of assessment we have an operative assessment of levy. At that moment a notice of claim shall not have effect and, if that is the case, the Commission cannot obtain a certificate from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to show what the allowance should be. This means that if we do not get a certificate from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as to what the allowance should be, the proposed new Clause cannot operate at any time two months after the notice of assessment of levy has been served. Why, therefore, do we give the Commission six years in which to apply this relief and why is it barred by the Schedule from giving relief?
There may be a simple answer which I have not been able to see from my study of the provision. As I said, I gave the Minister notice of this question some time ago and I hope that he now has the answer. The Government have gone wrong in this matter of Estate Duty and Capital Gains Tax in trying to give a concession to the Opposition but in being too cheeseparing about it.
In Committee the Opposition raised the question of Estate Duty. We took the view, rightly I believe, that where a family has already had to pay a substantial charge to the State by way of Estate Duty because of the death of the pater familias and where that family, within a short space of time, wishes to sell its house, it should not come in for another 40 per cent. levy on part of the value of that house. The State should not take two lots of duty from a family selling its home within a short space of time after there has been a death and Estate Duty has been paid.
It does not take very much these days for one to be in the 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. Estate Duty bracket and for a substantial chunk to be taken out of the value of a family's home. Our approach to this is that where a death has occurred and Estate Duty has been paid, if the family then wishes to sell its home within a reasonable period—within, say, a year or two of the death—it should be given credit for the Estate Duty it has paid on that house against the amount of levy. In other words, one should be set off against the other. We have not got that.
7.0 p.m.
This could be worded very simply. One would not need a complicated Schedule of 318 lines to work out something like that. Instead, we have a very complicated Schedule with very complicated arithmetical formulae, because what the Government are trying to do is to save the Estate Duty paid on the development value part, and that only. They are trying to give relief only for a small slice of the duty that has already been paid, and not for the whole of it.
That is the basic difference between the two sides on this matter and the reason why the Government mislead themselves into these difficult byways of the law is that they are being far too cheeseparing. They have not regarded this problem in human terms. They have not regarded the position of a family that has had a death and then has to sell its home within a few months. We think that in those circumstances one duty should be offset against the other so that the total duty is not excessive, but the Government do not want to do that at all. They want their full whack of Estate Duty and still have part of the betterment levy. That is


where we differ basically and fundamentally. I am sure that when the country realises what the Government are up to here, it will be solidly behind this side of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(DEATH, BANKRUPTCY, WINDING UP AND FLOATING CHARGES.)

The provisions of Schedule (Death, bankruptcy, winding up and floating charges) to this Act shall have effect in the cases specified in that Schedule.—[Mr. Willey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is a paving and linking Clause calling attention to the fact that provision has been made in the Schedule for death, bankruptcy, winding up and floating charges in these matters.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman read those few lines from his brief brilliantly. He not only will not introduce Clauses—he will not even reply to them. On new Clause No. 4, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) put some very potent points, of which he had given the Minister notice, and he did not even get a reply.
On this new Clause, I only protest again that the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to the House discussing the Schedule with it. This is another Schedule where it is heads the Commission wins and tails the levy payer loses. It is a Schedule by which the Estate Duty

New Clause.—(LEVY IN CASE F.)

(1) Regulations made under this section may specify descriptions of dispositions to which subsection (2), subsection (3) or subsection (4) of this section applies and provide that the making on or after the first appointed day of a disposition of any description so specified—


5
(a) if notified to the Commission in accordance with the regulations, or



(b) (in the case of a disposition of any description in relation to which the regulations so provide) whether it is so notified or not,



shall constitute an act or event designated for the purposes of Case F, as mentioned in section 27(2) of this Act.


10
(2) This subsection applies to any disposition which (not being a disposition to which section 29, section 30 or section 34 of this Act applies) is made for valuable consideration and fulfils either or both of the following conditions, that is to say,—



(a) that it renews or extends a tenancy;


15
(b) that it varies the terms and conditions of a tenancy by releasing or modifying a covenant or agreement whereby the development of any land comprised in the tenancy is restricted.



(3) This subsection applies to any disposition which (not being a disposition to which section 29, section 30 or section 34 of this Act or the last preceding subsection applies) is made for valuable consideration and is a disposition granting to a government department,

office is entitled to delay the administration of an estate for three years but, as we have seen from a previous Schedule, the levy payer may have to pay up the levy right away.

The principle that runs all through this Schedule, which deals with death, bankruptcy, winding up and floating charges, is not only prejudicial to the levy payer but to the public in general. The levy is to take priority over all other debts. We have recognised for some time in tax law that taxes due from an insolvent estate, from a man who has gone bankrupt, or from a company that is being wound up have a certain priority against other debts, but as we have been told again and again that this levy is not taxation there seems to be no reason why it should not take its place with other creditors of the estate or in bankruptcy or in winding up.

We were told in the Standing Committee that the Commission is a commercial undertaking, so it should take its chance with other commercial undertakings and come in with others. There is no reason why it should not rank with the ordinary creditors of an estate. It should not pinch the assets and leave the other creditors with nothing to come to them. That is the principle running through the whole of the Schedule. We shall wish to deal with it in detail later, but there is something basically wrong in this continual favouritism of the Commission, even though it is to carry out commercial transactions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

20
statutory undertakers or any other body a right to place, construct or maintain a main, pipe, cable, wire or other apparatus in, on, over or under land; and for the purposes of this section any instrument whereby such a right is compulsorily acquired by a government department, statutory undertakers or any other body shall be treated as a disposition granting that right for valuable consideration.


25
(4) This subsection applies to any disposition which (not being a disposition to which section 29, section 30 or section 34 of this Act applies) is made for valuable consideration and fulfils any one or more of the following conditions, that is to say—



(a) that it waives or modifies an obligation on a vassal imposed by a superior or mid-superior;


30
(b) that it imposes an augmentation of feu-duty;



(c) that it conveys the estate or interest of the proprietor of the dominium directum or of the creditor in a contract of ground annual.


35
(5) Regulations made under this section may specify enactments (other than those specified in section 33 of this Act) under which a right to compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land can accrue, and provide that the accrual on or after the first appointed day of a right to compensation under an enactment so specified, in so far as it is a right to compensation for such depreciation,—



(a) if notified to the Commission in accordance with the regulations, or


40
(b) (in the case of a right accruing under an enactment in relation to which the regulations so provide) whether it is so notified or not,



shall constitute an act or event designated for the purposes of Case F, as mentioned in section 27(2) of this Act.



(6) Where levy is to be charged in respect of—


45
(a) a disposition of a description specified by regulations made in accordance with subsection (1) of this section, or



(b) a right to compensation under an enactment specified by regulations made in accordance with subsection (5) of this section,



the levy shall be charged at the prescribed rate on an amount determined in such manner as may be prescribed by the regulations.


50
(7) Regulations made under this section shall be of no effect unless they are approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.—[Mr. Willey.]

Brought up, and read the birst time.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if with this new Clause we discussed the Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon): In line 3, after 'after', insert:
'the date of approval by the resolution mentioned in subsection (7) of this section but not before'.
In line 13, at end add:
'and that such renewal or extension is for a term of years certain of not less than seven years or (if notified in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act) for a term of years certain of less than seven years'.

Mr. Willey: This Clause deals with Case F. The original provisions gave a residuary power at large. I indicated at the start the categories of cases I had in mind. I said in Committee—and I now am doing so—that I would be prepared to bring in a new Clause which would limit the Regulation making powers to these three categories.
The first category is variations of tenancies where the leaseholder pays, for example, a substantial sum to the freeholder so that either a covenant in the lease against development may be waived, or the lease be extended so that the proposed development becomes a worthwhile operation. Such a payment would be a payment for development value and should be leviable. Notification of such payments would entitle the leaseholder to have them taken into account when he came himself to be assessed for levy at the start of development.
The second category is where payments are made by local authorities, statutory undertakers and other bodies for rights to lay pipelines and cables over another person's land. Such payments, obviously, could include substantial sums. This arises when these rights are obtained by acquiring a right which would not fall within the present provisions.
The third category consists of cases where Statutes authorise payments to be made because of the depreciation of value of land because of actions of various authorities but where no action or right arises is given over the land. This could arise under the Public Health Act, 1936, where a local authority has a right to


lay a sewer but if the exercise of the right causes a depreciation of value the local authority has to pay compensation.
These are the three categories of cases in regard to which it was generally accepted that we should provide for powers to provide by regulation. The new Clause removes the open-ended powers that were originally in the Bill. I have also provided, as I said in Standing Committee I would, that this shall be done by way of affirmative Resolution, I believe this to be appropriate in this case.
I would be quite prepared to accept the first of the two Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). The second Amendment would be more restrictive than the present provision which I think it better to leave as it now is. In fact, this position will arise only in case of notification.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move the Amendment, in line 3——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot move that Amendment until the Second Reading of the Clause has been disposed of.

Mr. Allason: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the Clause with faint praise in that it certainly is an improvement on the ridiculous Clause 35, which allowed the Minister by regulation to bring anything within the scope of the levy. Now he has confined it to certain particular elements and that certainly is an improvement.
It involves making Regulations to cover cases not sufficiently defined under Cases A, B and E. I am very glad to hear that the Minister is to accept our first Amendment. Otherwise the way he has provided this Clause would mean that he would be entitled to make Regulations some time after the first appointed day and they would then be retrospective to the first appointed day. That would be quite improper. A perfectly valid transaction could take place and perhaps years afterwards a regulation could be made that this was a chargeable act and the Commission would charge a levy on an operation which had finished and which perhaps the people involved would not have

undertaken had they known that there would be a levy. That would be unacceptable and I am glad that the Minister has met that point.
Under subsection (2) we get the question of a disposition made for a valuable consideration excluding Cases A, B or E, that is cases of a sale of the freehold or cases of lease or where there is a wayleave. Nevertheless, there may be other classes which the Minister brings in by regulation. He has pointed out particularly the case which renews or extends a tenancy, or varies a tenancy, or modifies a restrictive covenant.
Here we have to consider cases where the lease is less than seven years. The second Amendment has relevance to this. Normally in Case B a lease of less than seven years is excluded unless the lessee asks for it to be taken into consideration and the levy assessed because of later interests which are likely to arise. That is an entirely voluntary act, but here leases of less than seven years are to be covered by these Regulations, and deliberately.
It is rather interesting to examine carefully exactly what sort of things there are to be. On the question of renewing a tenancy for less than seven years I think the Minister said that it might be to make development worth while. With a long lease where the tenancy is renewed and then it becomes a feasible proposition for the tenant to undertake development, a simple case would be an extension of, say, 14 years on an existing lease of a shop, in which case the tenant might be prepared to undertake extensive modifications to the shop because he knows that he will have sufficient security of tenure to get his money back. But it is difficult to consider it in less than seven years. I fear that the Minister, in order to wrap up everything and to take care of every possible contingency, is legislating so that every possible, conceivable event will have to be reported.
7.15 p.m.
The alternative is on the question of lifting a ban for development where it is less than seven years. Is it a feasible proposition that in a lease of less than seven years one would change a restrictive covenant and this would make all the difference and a chargeable act or event would be likely to take place as a result?


That seems highly improbable. I suggest that the Minister is legislating in ever-decreasing circles. He is chasing his own tail and trying to legislate for absolutely everything.
Under subsection (3) we have the way-leave of a public body. I think the Minister suggested the case of farmland where a line of pylons has been erected or a pipeline has been laid and blight might ensue. This is far better put in Clause 34. It seems terribly untidy to have Clause 34, where wayleaves and that type of thing are dealt with, and then for the Minister in an omnibus Clause to say, "I also have power to make Regulations which will catch particular rents I have half thought about. I have described them, but I am not quite ready to describe them in detail." It would be more tidy as the provision was in Clause 34.
Subsection (6) says:
the levy shall be charged at the prescribed rate on an amount determined in such manner as may be prescribed by the regulations.
Is "the prescribed rate" the rate prescribed in these Regulations or a rate prescribed in another part of the Bill? From the wording it is not at all clear. The inference seems to be that it is possible by regulation for the Minister to have a different rate of levy in these cases than the rate of levy operating for the rest of the cases within the Bill.
Subsection (7) says that the Regulations will be subject to affirmative Resolution. This we heartily welcome. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting us on this. I hope he will not content himself with one Regulation of enormous length and expect it to get through the House in one day. I hope that he will bring his Regulations forward at intervals and give us plenty of time to have good discussions on them.

Mr. John Farr: I cannot allow this proposed Clause to pass without some reference to the proposal that under Case F should come payments received by landowners and farmers for such trivial matters as electricity way-leaves and telephone wayleaves. I must protest most strongly at their inclusion because the payment which a farmer receives for a couple of electricity pylons on his land cannot be in any way suggested as a return for material development.

They are merely payments received as compensation for inconvenience caused to the farmer by the added difficulty he has in fanning land over which the electricity lines pass. In no way can such receipts be classed as material development.
I give as an example the case of a field I know very well where there are no fewer than three large electricity pylons. The field is regularly put down to arable for the purpose of growing corn. Every time it is sown, every time it is harvested, and worked, the tractors have to go round those pylons. They leave a certain amount of land sterile and un-worked. Purely to compensate the farmer for the difficulty and inconvenience, a fairly small sum is paid, in the nature of £2 10s. or a few shillings per annum, as compensation only. This is not material development, nor is it beneficial development. It is merely compensation for inconvenience caused. As such I suggest that these wayleaves should not rank for levy.

Mr. Skeffington: My right hon. Friend is pleased with the reception the new Clause has received. On various matters certain undertakings were given in Committee. In addition, as in all the other cases, we carefully considered all the points which were made. Some of them are incorporated in the Schedules.
When I spoke just now I omitted, though not through discourtesy, to reply to a point made by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). Either my right hon. Friend or I will reply to that point when we reach the Schedule.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) asked, in relation to subsection (5), what is the governing factor for the rate of levy. As I think the hon. Gentleman will probably have supposed, that is in accordance with Clause 28. The hon. Gentleman raised one or two points on subsection (3). This specifically provides that
any instrument whereby such a right is compulsorily acquired by a government department, statutory undertakers or any other body shall be treated as a disposition granting that right for valuable consideration.
Thus the Clause does not only cover the voluntary grant of wayleaves to an approved operator but also the compulsory acquisition of wayleaves under the Pipelines Act.
As has been indicated, the Amendment in line 3 is accepted by the Government. The Government resist the Amendment in line 13, on two grounds. It is unnecessary and in part it is technically incompetent, because it seeks to write in an express limitation which is already implied from the reading of the whole Clause. The words
in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act
are wrong, because these provisions will be contained in Regulations.
The Regulations will provide for the type of case the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the case of a lease for less than seven years. The Regulations will provide that acts or events falling within Case F will be chargeable acts or events only if they are notified to the Commission. Thus, the way in which the Regulations will operate will be a good deal less onerous than the proposition of the Opposition.
For these reasons, although we accept the first Amendment, for the very good reasons I have outlined we cannot accept the second Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment made: In subsection (1), after "after" in line 3 insert:
the date of approval by the resolution mentioned in subsection (7) of this section but not before."—[Mr. Alfason.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause 7.—(DWELLING HOUSES OCCUPIED BY SELLER OR DISPOSER.)

Where an act or event which apart from this section could be chargeable under any of Cases A to F consists of or is closely related to the sale or disposition of a dwelling house occupied by the person by or on behalf of whom the sale or disposition is made during three years immediately preceding such sale or disposition, or consists of or is closely related to a sale or disposition of any interest in such dwelling house, no levy shall be payable.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The right hon. Gentleman has had so much trouble with his own new Clauses with which he has been endeavouring to

patch the rending fabric of the Bill that I imagine he will be thankful to have reached the stage at which other people move new Clauses. I am glad that you, Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom, have selected this Clause for discussion, since it raises a very important issue. The issue is the position of the owner-occupier in respect of the levy.
On the earlier Bill, and to a lesser extent on this one, I endeavoured to draw the Minister's attention to the problems which this Measure was creating for the owner-occupier. I hope the righ hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that he seemed to be completely insensitive. Indeed, at one stage he tended to try to brush the whole issue off by suggesting that development value would not arise in the case of the disposal of owner-occupied property and that there was therefore no trouble. On further reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will, I think, realise that on that point he was wrong.
There are in my constituency a large number of small houses with gardens which, with the redevelopment which is constantly taking place throughout the Greater London Area, will be sold and redeveloped with higher densities of buildings and with higher buildings. When they are disposed of there will be, under the provisions of the Bill, alleged to be substantial development value and, therefore, a substantial charge imposed by way of the levy.
Perhaps because the right hon. Gentleman has had two goes at the Bill—and it has been going on for quite a long time—there is a considerable failure on the part of people outside to realise what the Bill will do to them. This is certainly true in this particular field. People outside the House do not realise that, as the Bill stands, the ordinary person of modest means who has, through his personal sacrifice, become the owner-occupier of a house with a little land attached will find, when he either sells it or leases it for more than seven years, that he will be mulcted by the levy. This is not realised outside the House. It is one of the many respects in which people outside the House do not realise what the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are up to.
I must confine myself on the new Clause to the question of the owner-occupier. I have sought to draft the


Clause so as to protect him. I have inserted in it the limitation that the concession will apply only where there has been owner-occupation for three years. It is designed to prevent any abuse of the Clause and any question of phoney owner-occupation.
Hon. Members may differ as to whether I have the period precisely right, but it is fair to say that, where someone has owned and occupied a house for three years, that is a genuine owner-occupation. If anything, I have drafted the Clause rather against the interests of those whom I am seeking to protect rather than excessively in their favour. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.
It used to be the policy of all Governments to encourage owner-occupation. That has been the policy in fiscal matters for some considerable time. It is noteworthy that even under this Government, who have treated the owner-occupier in many respects extremely badly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done very much better in this respect than the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in imposing his Capital Gains Tax, provided an exclusion for the owner-occupier. I seek to write into the Bill something parallel to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought right to do in the interests of owner-occupation.
In view of the florid language which has been used by right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the merits of owner-occupation, and in view of the promises which they made in their election manifestoes, I hope I do not need to spend any time convincing them of something which is socially good and something which should be encouraged.
The owner-occupier has had a very rough time of it lately, despite the concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is paying higher mortgage interest than he has ever paid in our history. He is finding houses more expensive to buy than ever before in our history. Both the capital sum which he has to find and the interest which he has to pay on it are higher than ever before. Therefore, if the professions and promises of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they wish to encourage owner-occupation are sincere and genuine, it is increasingly

urgent that they should do something to help and encourage the owner-occupier.
7.30 p.m.
I suggest to the House that my proposal will do this. One of the motives—and it is a very respectable motive—which induces many of our fellow countrymen to seek the opportunity of making the sacrifices which are involved in taking out a mortgage is the knowledge that they are creating a capital asset for themselves and for their dependants. Although one has to forgo a great deal of spending which would be very pleasant, one is creating the capital asset of an owner-occupied house.
If we impose the levy which the Bill proposes to slap upon the owner-occupier, we very much diminish that incentive. I suggest that that is wrong. In the Conservative Government we tried to help the owner-occupier in a variety of ways. We helped particularly by raising the lower limit of Estate Duty. This was deliberately designed to help the person whose capital possession, possibly his sole capital possession, is a modest house. We succeeded in raising the figure in order to clear estates which consisted mainly of houses of this character. That is surely the right social policy—to seek to encourage our fellow citizens in all ways, including helping them to create a capital asset which will benefit them and their dependants, to undertake the sacrifices involved in owner-occupation.
I sometimes doubt whether the Government are sincere in what they say about the owner-occupier. They put far too much emphasis in their housing policy on the encouragement of council building, to the detriment of private enterprise. But the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House affirmed again and again when he was Minister of Housing his enthusiasm for encouraging owner-occupation. It would not be consistent with that attitude on the part of the Government to impose under the Bill a further burden on the owner-occupier.
Yet this is what the Bill will do if it stands in its present form without my new Clause. I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is an acid test of the Government's sincerity and enthusiam for the owner-occupier that this concession should be made. I do


not know whether the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us how much it would cost. I doubt whether the cost would be substantial. But substantial or not, I hope that the House will realise that we are not asking for relief from any existing impost; we are merely asking for exclusion from an additional charge.
All this arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has adduced in support of the Bill tend to support the new Clause. We have been told of the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to help people to get their houses more cheaply and to help people with their housing problems. If the right hon. Gentleman really means that, does he mean to stop once they have got the house and then to impose this additional burden on them thereafter? Does he intend to make it so much less remunerative than it need be for them, when the time comes, through death or change of job, perhaps, to dispose of the house?
I call in aid the right hon. Gentleman's own protestations of his and the Government's desire to help people with their housing problems in an owner-occupation sense. I am certain that a sound society will contain within it a great many owner-occupiers. Not everybody will be an owner-occupier. There are some people who, because of the nature of their jobs, must rent either from local authorities or from private landlords. But a society in which an increasing proportion of people own their own homes is a healthy society. This is recognised—the Milner Holland Committee's Report brings it out—throughout the civilised nations of Western Europe. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not by the Bill further to discourage owner-occupation, and I say to him, "If you cannot help, do not hinder."

Sir D. Glover: The whole house should thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for moving this new Clause.
It is deplorable that a Government in this day and age should be bringing in a Bill which will adversely affect the owner-occupier. Lip-service is paid by all political parties to the value of owner-occupation and yet, as months go by while the Government are in office, it becomes increasingly obvious that it is only lip-service and that the Government

have a deep hatred for any owner of property, even the owner-occupied house.
There is no doubt that under the Bill there is a deliberate attempt to remove freehold ownership from the orbit of the individual and that the object of the Bill in the long run is to turn all land, whether that owned by the owner-occupier or not, into a Crown leasehold. What is a Crown leasehold? We must bear in mind the evils of leasehold about which the Labour Party have complained so bitterly from time to time in the House. Crown leasehold is taking away the right of the individual to own property without any let or hindrance and without any obligation to anybody else. In other words, it is to put the State shackles on the freedom of the individual.
Yet the Government propose to do this to owner-occupiers at a time when they are finding it increasingly difficult to provide the finances to continue the housing programme on the basis which we had planned when we were in office. The Government are running into increasing difficulties. To put anything in the way of more and more people becoming owner-occupiers must be against the national interest, and yet this is what the Bill will do.
When buying or building a house a man is not doing it only for himself. He is thinking about the future of his family. If any levy of any sort is imposed on such a person, that is a bigger argument in that person's mind against entering into the financial commitment, which in many cases is a very heavy burden for 25 years during his purchase of the house. When entering into the commitment to buy his own house a man is conscious that it may be the only property that he may leave when he dies. He wishes to be assured that his wife will have security of tenure in that house.
If he has to find the money for this additional burden, even though it be limited, it will mean that he will ask himself whether the sacrifice is worth it. If he decides that it is not worth it because of this additional burden, the State will have a greater number of people searching for somewhere to live, and this will be an added burden for the State to undertake.
The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may think that this is very desirable. They would like us all to be


servants and dependants of the State because in those circumstances, they feel, they will have greater control of us in the future. It is becoming clear that, deep down, the Socialist Party have a hatred of anybody owning any property. They think that the State should own it all.
I will not delay the House. I have said enough. But I should like it placed on record that when we are discussing my right hon. Friend's new Clause, which I think ought to be accepted without any further argument, we have the Minister, his Parliamentary Private Secretary and a Whip on the Benches opposite, and no other Socialist Member sufficiently interested even to come to listen to the debate which affects the future of millions of people who have entered into commitments to be independent and to own their own property.

Sir J, Foster: I draw attention to one aspect of this policy in connection with the present economic situation. The Prime Minister has emphasised the importance of workers moving from one part of the country to another where necessary. Thus, anything which makes it more difficult to move from one house to another is bad for the economy. For example, we read in the papers that a workman in the Midlands, offered a job at Vauxhall's in the North, could not go because he could not find a house there.
That situation is mainly because of the breakdown of the Government's housing policy, but anything that makes it more difficult to move must be wrong. Obviously, not only is there the human reluctance to pay the levy to the Government, but there is also a good financial reason why one should not pay it. Let us suppose that the levy on a house is £200 if the owner sells it. Let us assume that he has the opportunity of another house in the North. If he sells his own house in order to move, he must pay £200 to the Land Commission. If he does not pay it and the price of his house steadily goes up, he has £200 of what would have been the Government's money working for him. It is contrary to the interests of the country to make it more difficult for a house owner who can get a job elsewhere to move there.
We have dealt with a complicated Schedule concerning the overlapping of

Capital Gains Tax and the levy. The point of the Schedule was that if there was such overlapping the Capital Gains Tax could be deducted from the levy. It was done in a complicated way, but that was the objective. Here, the concession given on Capital Gains Tax is merely pro tanto and the Capital Gains Tax policy thus runs counter to the policy in the Bill. The Government should at least have said that the levy should be reduced by the amount of Capital Gains Tax as it would have been paid if it had been leviable. That is not a complicated calculation compared with what we have seen in other Schedules. If a man had paid £100 from his house and sold at £175, then the Capital Gains Tax would have been on £25 which could have been taken for the levy for development.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I associate myself with the case put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) in favour of this new Clause. My right hon. Friend stated, with characteristic clarity and eloquence, how great is the case for the encouragement of owner occupancy in the general context of our national life. I fully share that view and I need not take time in emphasising it.
I am on record for over 20 years in this House as having testified both to the value of owner occupancy in the social sense and to the need for greater housing provision and better standards. Outside the House, I hope that the fact that I am an honorary vice-president of the Building Societies' Association, on the one hand, and an honorary vice-president of the House Builders' Registration Council, on the other, bears some testimony to these facts.
7.45 p.m.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that the Government themselves have, up to a point, accepted the validity of this argument in favour of tempering the wind to some extent to the owner occupier by the treatment of the owner occupier in respect of Capital Gains Tax. Indeed, to go further back, in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, there were some concessions and modifications in respect of


house ownership. In the present context, unless this new Clause is accepted, there must be a retreat from that principle.
That retreat is all the more surprising because, even within the ambit of the Bill, there is some evidence of an acceptance by the Government of this principle. I am referring primarily, of course, to Clause 61, which carries an exemption from Case C levy in respect of single family dwelling houses built on land acquired before 23rd September, 1965. That is an exemption in respect of what might be called a full-blooded project of material development—that is to say, the erection at least of a building which is the major form of development.
If the Minister does not accept this new Clause, he will be denying to the resident owner-occupier of three years or more the benefit of an exemption in respect of a change which may arise in a matter of much less significant material development than that in respect of which at the moment exemption is granted under Clause 61. For example, there would be a liability, a chargeable event, if, related to sale or disposition of a house, there was, for example, an extension of the house greater than that carrying exemption under the General Development Order or the Third Schedule and thus not having any exemption under Clause 94(2).
I take that as only one example. If time did not press I could give a number of others, but that is as good as I need to illustrate the point. The Minister, having, as it were, swallowed the camel of Clause 61, should not strain at the gnat of giving exemption on what may be lesser cases, but nevertheless cases which will impose come financial burden on owner-occupiers of a sort that they should not be obliged to bear. The cumulative effects of such burdens will be to discourage owner occupancy and will, as my right hon. Friend said, therefore be to the social detriment of the community. I therefore join with those who have expressed the hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Costain: I should like to associate myself with my right hon. and hon. Friends in support of the new Clause. I am amazed that the Minister has not risen to his feet to say that he accepts the Clause on social grounds. It can only

be that the Labour Government are so fundamentally against the owner-occupier that they cannot see the reasonable arguments which have been put forward, and so I appeal to the Minister as a builder on practical grounds to see whether that will reach his stony heart.
On practical grounds it must be appreciated by his Ministry and by him by now that there will not be enough valuers and experienced property agents to be able to give an assessment in all the cases which will occur. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Clause, he would immediately cut down the number of professional valuers required. We have already experienced having to put back revaluation for rating because there are not enough valuers, and this would be a simple process by which the right hon. Gentleman could adjust the position.
The second practical ground is that if the Minister does not accept the Clause, he will further dry up the supply of land, and the one thing we want to get on with the building programme is an increase in the supply of land. The Minister of Housing and Local Government knows the position very well and he must have informed the right hon. Gentleman of the facts and told him that one of the things which is holding up the building of houses for sale is the log jam of people selling existing houses, a jam caused by the difficulty of getting mortgages for second-hand houses. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless he gives the exemption for which we ask, he will make that position even more difficult?
When a second-hand house is being sold, the first thing which the original owner-occupier has to decide is whether he can afford to move to another and possibly a smaller house, at the time of his retirement, thus releasing a house to be available for a family which is waiting for a house. That owner-occupier calculates whether he can afford to move and to what sort of house he can afford to move and financially this is a critical time for him. Hanging over that calculation he now is to have an unknown levy. It may or may not be a lot, but it is the fact that it is an unknown levy which will be the straw on the camel's


back. He will have this uncertain formula hanging over him and so he will not move.
Another case is that of the man with a slightly larger house in a suburban area, the sort of property which is required for higher density building. He will be in an even greater dilemma, because he will probably think that his levy will be greater. But that is just the sort of property for which the Minister should be looking. That is the sort of land which he should be trying to get developed, for if that kind of land is developed we will get the price of land down and attack speculation. I appeal to the Minister, if he will not accept the Clause on humanitarian or social grounds, to accept it on practical grounds.

Mr. Willey: I welcome the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) back to our discussions on the Land Commission. I apreciate a great deal of what he has said and what other hon. Members have said in this debate. Both sides of the House must remember that we are here considering the family and the home, a criterion which is very relevant when judging the records of Governments and political parties. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) made it clear that it would be wrong to stigmatise the Bill as being patently against the owner-occupier and he gave an example of a provision in the Bill which, for very good reasons, would favour the owner-occupier. The most important consideration to the owner-occupier is what we do about mortgage rates, a subject with which we shall be dealing this Session. We shall also be dealing this Session with leasehold enfranchisement and we can then see what the reaction of the Conservative Party is. All of these things are part and parcel of the same subject.
It has been said that I am insensitive and the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) spoke of mobility. That is something which we have very much in mind. But the great majority of owner-occupiers will not be affected by the Bill at all and will not be affected by Capital Gains Tax. If I sell my home for £5,000, I shall not be subject to tax, because I shall have to provide for myself a home costing £5,000

somewhere else. That is the reply to what was said about mobility.
But on this new Clause we are dealing with a different case where there is a redevelopment value, which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said would be a substantial value. This is a separate factor. I thought that both sides of the House agreed about betterment. If it is right to take part of the betterment, it is right in this case, too. There is no difference between us about the home and the owner-occupier and his liability to Capital Gains Tax, but if we are concerned about development value, that is a value in which the community should share.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman said that the great majority of owner-occupiers would not be affected by the levy. In other words, he said that for the great majority of them there will be no development value. Can he give figures to show how many of the present number of owner-occupied houses—I think that it is about 7 million—will have development value and what number will not?

Mr. Willey: No, I could not. I can give the common experience of all of us, that in the majority of cases no question of development value would arise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can I press the right hon. Gentleman on this issue, which is crucial? If the ordinary small house in my constituency with a small garden gets planning permission for redevelopment, there is no doubt that it will attract some additional value. Surely in every one of those cases there must therefore be an element of development value which would attract the levy.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Further to that, is it not the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage that as a means of making more housing provision without necessitating an encroachment upon open land or the green belt?

Mr. Rippon: Will the Minister agree that of the 7 million owner-occupied houses probably 6 million will be affected by this provision?

Mr. Graham Page: I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman might answer those figures, which seem to be very relevant. I will return a little later to


his allegation that the majority of dwelling houses will not have any development value.
Because the Bill is called the Land Commission Bill, many people have thought that it affects merely the great landed estates and areas of land and have never realised that the levy is a levy also on bricks and mortar, not only on factories and offices and things like petrol stations and restaurants, but on dwelling houses and on the homes of the people. It is no good saying that most dwelling houses will not have any development value. If that were true, it might be a very good argument for exempting them from the Bill altogether, because if most of them are not to have any development value, why should the transactions in them be reported to the Commission with all the palaver of valuation and so on? This is not the case. It is no exaggeration to say that every prewar house has a development value. There is the possibility that planning permission could be obtained and development of the house carried out. This is true of many more recently built houses.
8.0 p.m.
There is no doubt that there is the risk, on the sale of every dwelling house, of a levy being exacted. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that by bringing them into the Bill and refusing to exempt them. He believes that there is something to be gained and every buyer and seller of a home runs this risk.
I suppose that I ought to have disclosed at an earlier stage that I am a director of a building society, since this is particularly relevant to this new Clause. In that position I know that at present, by reason of Government policy, we are faced with a very serious falling-off in demand for houses. When there is a falling-off in demand, less houses are built, because builders immediately contract business to meet the lower demand. They are now forecasting that less houses will be built next year than are being built this year. Already this Government's policies have produced less houses this year than last year.
The whole housing programme is in a chaotic state. Added to that we are now to have this further deterrent of a levy on the sale of people's homes. The vendors

of houses will be in doubt about the amount of levy, and they may hesitate to sell because they do not know what their liability out of the purchase money will be or, if they do sell, they will add to the selling price in order to cover what one of my hon. Friends called this unknown levy. It will be a deterrent, not only because of the vendor's price but again because the purchaser, once he has bought his home, may have to move to another district because of his employment. He will then have to pay, out of the sale money, any levy, so that he may well think that it would be far better to take a short tenancy and thus avoid being landed with the levy.
There is no doubt that the owner occupier should have been exempted from this Bill. It is not a matter of argument, logic and reason. It is a matter of common sense, having regard to the Government's policies. Why should a man not be entitled to betterment of his own home without being charged a levy upon it?

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I wish to associate the Liberal Members of this House with the remarks which have been made in support of this new Clause, not only on the ground of home ownership, in which I firmly believe, but because the Minister has so signally failed to counter the argument that this will be a great hindrance to mobility. He painted a picture of the small property market which was uttrely and depressingly static, as though generations of our people are to be condemned to buy and sell those wretched little houses put up during bad periods. He suggested that there would be no redevelopment whatever of small plots. This is not my picture of the Britain that we hope to have. The development of very small plots is urgently required and I look forward to it happening at an early date, if we can get the economy right.
If the Government had chosen to deal with this urgent problem of betterment by means of an annual charge, then it would be a stimulus to people to get rid of their property and to move, and I could have seen the force of the Minister's objections. Since they have decided to deal with this problem by the blunt instrument of a levy, only on realisation, I shall recommend my hon. Friends to support this new Clause if it is pressed to a Division.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 197.

Division No. 181.]
AYES
[8.5 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Astor, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hastings, Stephen
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Awdry, Daniel
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K.
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Batsford Brian
Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hooson, Emlyn
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F. A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Carlisle, Mark
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roots, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Corfield, F. V.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, John


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crouch, David
Loveys, W. H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dance, James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Talbot, John E.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R. w. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Marten, Neil
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Mathew, Robert
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fortescue, Tim
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, Willliam


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Monro, Hector
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr Reginald Eyre.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Albu, Austen
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Alldritt, Walter
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Floud, Bernard


Anderson, Donald
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ford, Ben


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester, John


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fowler, Gerry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Baxter, William
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Cardner, Tony


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Garrett, W. E.


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Garrow, Alex


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Delargy, Hugh
Gourlay, Harry


Bishop, E. S.
Dell, Edmund
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Blackburn, F.
Dempsey, James
Gregory, Arnold


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dewar, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Boardman, H.
Dickens, James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Booth, Albert
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Boyden, James
Doig, Peter
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dunn, James A.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Brooks, Edwin
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hannan, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Haseldine, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hazell, Bert


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Henig, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ellis, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael
Hooley, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Ennals, David
Homer, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ensor, David
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Chapman, Donald
Faulds, Andrew
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Coe, Denis
Fennyhough, E.
Howie, W.


Coleman, Donald
Finch, Harold
Hoy, James


Concannon, J. D.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)




Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Sheldon, Robert


Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hynd, John
Newens, Stan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
O'Malley, Brian
Skeffington, Arthur


Kelley, Richard
Orme, Stanley
Small, William


Kenyon, Clifford
Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie


Lawson, George
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Palmer, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.


Lomas, Kenneth
Pannen, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, w.)


Loughlin, Charles
Park, Treyor
Thornton, Ernest


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Tinn, James


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Tomney, Frank


McBride, Neil
Pent land, Norman
Varley, Eric G.


McCann, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Probert, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


MacPherson, Malcolm
Randan, Harry
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Manuel, Archie
Rankin, John
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Mapp, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Marquand, David
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Maxwell, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Woof, Robert


Mendelson, J. J.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Zilliacus, K.


Millan, Bruce
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)



Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rose, Paul
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans

New Clause.—(RELIEF FROM NOTIFICATION IN CASE OF EXEMPTIONS.)

No notification shall be required to be given to the Commission of any chargeable act or event which by virtue of sections 56, 57, 58, or 59 of this Act does not give rise to the charging of levy.—[Mr. Allason.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Clause 56, which deals with local authorities and other bodies, begins:
No levy shall be chargeable—

(a) in Case A, Case B, or Case E, where the grantor is a body to whom this section applies".

Local authorities, development corporations, new towns commissions and various other public bodies come within the Clause. Clause 57 deals with charities, Clause 58 with statutory undertakers and the National Coal Board, and Clause 59 with housing associations. All these bodies, by the first line of each Clause, are exempted from payment of the levy. Therefore, why is it necessary to enforce notification on them?

Under Clause 38, entitled "Notification in Case C"—that is, a development—this is the sort of thing which has to take place. Let us consider the example of a local authority which has bought land on which it wants to start house building. It is required to notify the Land Commission.

Subsection (5) of the Clause sets out the sort of notification which is required. The local authority has to inform the Commission of

"(a) any planning permission in accordance with which the project is to be carried out;
(b) the land which is intended to be comprised in the project, the nature and scope of the project and the date on which it is proposed to begin to carry it out;
(c) (where the person serving the notice is the developing owner in relation to the project)"—

which, presumably, the local authority is—
every interest, contract or notice to treat by virtue of which he is the developing owner;
(d) any other interests subsisting in the land which is to be comprised in the project and the persons entitled to those interests respectively;
(e) any contract for disposing of any interest in that land to which the person serving the notice is a party; and
(f) any other matters appearing to the appropriate Ministers or Ministers to be relevant for the purpose of assessing levy …

Every local authority, with the vast amount of local government building which goes on even under this Government, will have to notify the Commission of all this. A tremendous amount of work will be cast on local authorities in supplying information which, on its arrival at the Land Commission, will presumably be thrown into the wastepaper basket because no levy is chargeable. One assumes.


therefore, that the Commission will not go through the elaborate process of working out how much levy is due to be charged and then deciding at the last moment that the levy is not chargeable and therefore that it need not send a notice of assessment. Or it may be that the intention is that they should send a notice of assessment and that the local authority should write back and claim exemption. We do not know how the Bill will work.

It seems ridiculous that busy local authorities, charities, statutory undertakers and various other bodies which are exempt should be asked to forward this vast amount of information. It is most extraordinary that this is demanded by the Government through the Bill. Vast numbers of civil servants are bound to be employed in this work already. I do not want to see vast numbers of local government servants also employed in it, which they certainly will be if that is the intention. Why waste everybody's time? There will be quite enough for the civil servants to do dealing with the more than 1 million notifications a year which are bound to occur, without the notifications of local authorities and all the others.

The only good that I can see coming out of this is a purely constituency point. We have a great firm of paper manufacturers in my constituency and the flood of paper which the Government intend to be passing between the Commission and everybody who is trying to develop will undoubtedly bring great prosperity to my constituency. I do not believe even that, however, to be a good enough reason for insisting on the unnecessary.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has moved the new Clause with his customary lucidity and charm. He or another hon. Member referred to me earlier today as having skated over thin ice. The hon. Member has skated over some of the administrative points in connection with the new Clause, which on reflection, I am sure, he will realise is not quite right, particularly because, if the Clause were carried, he might well inflict considerable harm on the payer of the levy.
I will explain why the Government advise the House not to accept the

Clause. It sounds an attractive proposition to ask why, if no levy is to be payable, we should go through the procedure of notification in the first instance, but there are two basic reasons why the Government could not possibly advise the House to accept the Clause. First, in the case of notifications in Cases A, B, E and F, the fact of notification is of considerable assistance to the levy payer who is involved in a subsequent transaction. Suppose, for example, that a local authority had sold land to a private person. If there were no notification in such a case and the private individual subsequently sold or developed, he might be in considerable difficulty in being able to get evidence of his base value. In that case, he might well have to pay more levy than otherwise would arise.
The hon. Member quoted some of the exemptions in Clauses 56 to 59——

Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman cites an example of a local authority which has sold to a private individual, who later wants to sell but finds it difficult to establish base value. There should not be the slightest difficulty when he has made a purchase. When he wants to sell again, there would be no difficulty in establishing it.

Mr. Skeffington: When notification is made at the time of the transaction, the matter is above board for all to see. The Schedule 5 base value and the price paid would be of material interest to that person. After a long lapse of time, it is not always easy to prove these things.
Even so, the hon. Member did less than justice in referring to Clauses 56 to 58. If he looks at them he will realise that even in these cases where no levy is chargeable, this is normally only in respect of certain land. Clause 56 concerns the local authorities in cases where no levy is chargeable. In subsection (2) appear the words:
without prejudice to the charging of levy in respect of any other interest in that land or part of that land.
There is a similar provision in Clause 57 for charities, in subsection (3). Even in the case of statutory undertakers, the exemption from levy applies only under certain conditions which are stated in Clause 58. It is only in those cases that the levy is not paid. Nevertheless, so that the Commission shall know from which


particular portion of land the development values accrue, it is right that there should be notification. Therefore, all chargeable acts or events which must be notified certainly include these provisions.
If it were possible to restrict the application to cases where there was not likely to be any other interest involved or where one felt that the question of base value would not arise, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister would be pleased to accept the Clause. Indeed, there has been one case of granting exemption from the notification procedures which is covered in Clause 56(3): that is, where a wholly exempt body carries out development of land in which it owns all the assessable interest. Unless the hon. Member can point to any other case where the exact set of circumstances applies, for the reasons which I have given the Clause and the power that it contains would create difficulties for the Commission and very often cause hardship to the levy payer.
I should stress that the obligation to notify in compulsory cases is not likely to be burdensome. As we said in Committee, this is very little more than complying with the requirements of the form on which details now have to be returned to the Inland Revenue. I agree that the obligation is a little more heavy in Case C, but in the other cases it is something which has to be done. One form can now be used for these purposes and, I believe, for Capital Gains Tax as well. There is not, therefore, the great additional bureaucratic burden which the hon. Member suggested. The one form which is to be used was, I am happy to say, discussed with the Law Society and is, I believe, in preparation.
For all these reasons, I hope that the House will not feel that the Government are unreasonable in asking it to reject the new Clause should it be pressed.

Mr. Graham Page: The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to me a little troubled with his arguments against this new Clause, which was submitted so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). I should have thought that we might have had some information from die Parliamentary Secretary as to the number of transactions which it is expected will have to be reported each year. The estimate

which I have been given, and which I have no reason to doubt, is that somewhere about 2 million transactions will have to be reported each year. Two million transactions reported! Quite rightly my hon. Friend talked about the amount of paper involved in this; but it is not only the amount of paper: it is the amount of staff which will have to deal with the 2 million applications.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I have been interrupted myself and I hope the hon. Member will not mind my interrupting him once. The point I was trying to make was that in all these transactions, if there had not been this particular procedure, notification would have had to be made to the Inland Revenue. Therefore, no additional burden is put on anybody.

Mr. Page: Do I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is referring to notifications under the Finance Act—of particulars delivered? I have had an Amendment down to Finance Bills for very many years to do away with that ridiculous nonsense of the particulars delivered, filed with every conveyance. It has never been accepted, but it is time it was accepted. Now some use is being made of those forms, but to suggest that these were filed, and that notification would have had to have been given, is really a very poor argument. Those forms were filed, and are filed now, on the occasion of every conveyance. Again I declare an interest as a solicitor. I tack on a guinea at the end of the scale charge in order to do that. If the Parliamentary Secretary deprives me of that I shall not be worried—stupid little forms to be given and filed in the Inland Revenue somewhere and never looked at. Now they are to be used for this purpose. No; those notifications are now going to the Inland Revenue; they will pass from the Inland Revenue to the staff of the Land Commission, to be tucked away, filed somewhere to be looked at never, and if they are to be looked at, we are told that 2,000 staff are to look at those notifications.
Of course, that staff will be far more than 2,000. I gather that that 2,000 merely means clerks other than, possibly, principals, at the Land Commission: not valuers; the district valuer will do the valuation, or else it will be farmed out


to private firms. These are clerks to deal with reports, notifications, each year. I doubt whether all those 2,000 members of the staff are principals and can deal with notifications. But let us cut this down to one principal and a typist. This will be the unit, as it were, to look at each notification which comes in. That means we have got 1,000 units to look at each notification—a man and his typist. That means that 2,000 cases a year have to be dealt with by that unit; 40 cases a week. Is a staff of 2,000 really going to deal with that? Of course not. It is going to increase and pile up to a far greater figure.
But what if we could cut down those notifications from 2 million to about 500,000? I believe we could cut them down to that figure. If it were accepted that dwelling houses, the homes of the people, did not have to be notified we could cut them down by at least 500,000, and if all those cases mentioned in Clauses 56, 57 and 58 were not to be reported. So we could save a considerable amount of the staff of the Land Commission. Instead of that we are to have a staff of 2,000. It is going to be heavily overworked, and I believe that we shall find that the staff is not 2,000 but, very shortly, 10,000.
At the other end of this process every vendor of property has to fill in this form, got, perhaps, to answer further inquiries from the Land Commission. What a loss of productive time in those undertakings which are to be exempt from the levy altogether. I cannot see that there can be any doubt about a transaction which is exempt. Take, for example, Clause 56. Clause 56 sets out certain statutory bodies. There cannot be any question whether a body is or is not a commission of a new town, or is or is not the Highlands and Islands Development Board. If one of those bodies sells property it is, except in exceptional circumstances, exempt from the levy. Why then should it not be exempt from giving notification? The Parliamentary Secretary says it is not necessarily exempt, but let me come back to that point. I have it in mind.
I want to look at the other Clauses in which we say that there are those who are exempt and who ought not to have to notify. Let us look, for example, at

Clause 58, which deals with statutory undertakers and the National Coal Board. Well, it is either the National Coal Board or it is not; there cannot be any doubt about it. The statutory undertakers are defined by Statute, and if a statutory undertaker is selling part of the property of the statutory undertaking, it is exempt except in exceptional circumstances.
The reasons which the Parliamentary Secretary gave for notification by even these people who are exempt from the levy were these. He said, first, that this will be of great assistance to the levy payer, but let us look at that for a moment. He is talking about a man who purchases from a statutory undertaker. Take the case of a man who purchases from the National Coal Board. He gets a conveyance from the National Coal Board and in that conveyance the purchase money is stated. What more information does he want on record than that? He can refer back to it when he comes to sell. He does not have to have the transaction reported to the Land Commission in order to know the price which he paid for the property. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying. He is saying that the man does not know the price that he paid for the property, so it needs to be reported to the Land Commission. What happens when he wants to sell and wishes to know what levy he must pay? Does he have to write to the Land Commission to ask how much he paid?

Mr. Skeffington: That is not what I said, either.

Mr. Page: With respect, it was. The hon. Gentleman said the man would want to know the price that he has paid. He elaborated on that and said that he would want to know the base value, but that would follow from the price paid by the calculation in the Second Schedule.
Then he said that it is true that it is possible to identify the statutory undertakers, the National Coal Board, the local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and so on. He said that they can be identified as vendors, but they are not exempt on all transactions.
Let us examine what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is that these statutory


undertakers are not going to read the Land Commission Act and see the cases in which they are not exempt or, if they do read the Act, they are deliberately not going to report those cases to the Commission. If they know that they are not exempt, they should report the cases. If it needs putting into the new Clause, let us put it in. But we really must trust the statutory undertakers and not establish the Land Commission as Big Brother over them.
The hon. Gentleman is saying that the National Coal Board must report to the Land Commission so that the Commission can judge whether a transaction is one in which the National Coal Board is exempt. Surely we can trust the National Coal Board to read the Act and report those cases in which it knows that it is not exempt from paying the levy. However, in most cases the National Coal Board, statutory undertakers and public authorities will be exempt.

The Clause is a most important one. In it, we are trying to make the Bill work. When we in this party become the

Government again, we shall repeal the Act at once and abolish the Land Commission. But when a Bill is going through the House and the Government are determined to get it on the Statute Book, it is right that we should suggest ways in which it could be made to work.

If some such proposal as is put in the new Clause is not adopted, either the Bill will not work or there will be such a large bureaucracy working it that the expense will be exhorbitant. As it is, we are building up a staff of 2,000, we are told, at a time when the Government's policy seems to be to move people from clerical work into manual work and the productive industries. We are going to use professional men on this sterile job in the Commission. Surely we can relieve some of them from looking through notifications in cases where we know that no levy will be made?

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 213.

Division No. 182.]
AYES
[8.41 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Astor, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hastings, Stephen
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Awdry, Daniel
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K.
Heseltine, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Batsford, Brian
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pink, R. Bonner


Bossom, Sir Clive
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F. A.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Carlisle, Mark
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roots, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Henry
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John


Costain, A. P.
Loveys, W. H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crouch, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Talbot, John E.


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marten, Nell
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Mathew, Robert
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fisher, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, William


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector
Worsley, Marcus


Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Gower, Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Grieve, Percy
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Reginald Eyre.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Floud, Bernard
Neal, Harold


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Newens, Stan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Forrester, John
Oakes, Gordon


Allen, Scholefield
Fowler, Gerry
Ogden, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Gardner, Tony
Orbach, Maurice


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Garrett, W. E.
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrow, Alex
Oswald, Thomas


Baxter, William
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Beaney, Alan
Gregory, Arnold
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pannenll, Rt. Hn. Charles


Binns, John
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Pardoe, John


Bishop, E. S.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Park, Trevor


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Penttand, Norman


Booth, Albert
Hannan, William
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bradley, Tom
Haseldine, Norman
Price, William (Rugby)


Brooks, Edwin
Hazell, Bert
Probert, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Henig, Stanley
Randall, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Rankin, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)
Hooley, Frank
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Homer, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carmichael, Nein
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Rose, Paul


Chapman, Ronald
Hoy, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Coe, Dennis
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheldon, Robert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Davidton, Arthur (Accrington)
Kelley, Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, James (Aberdeeneshire, W.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Leadbitter, Ted
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dell, Edmund
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thornton, Ernest


Dempsey, James
Mabon Dr. J. Dickson
Thorpe, Jeremy


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dickens, James
McCann, John
Tomney, Frank


Dobson, Ray
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Manuel, Archie
Whitlock, William


Edwards, Robert (Bittton)
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Marquand, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ellis, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Willis, George (Edinburgh, P,)


English, Michael
Maxwell, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ennals David
Mendelson, J. J.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ensor, David
Millnan, Bruce
Winterbottom, R. E.


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woof, Robert


Fernyhough, E.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Zilliacus, K.


Finch, Harold
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)



Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

New Clause 9.—(EXEMPTIONS UPON A SERIES OF CHARGEABLE ACTS OR EVENTS.)

Where persons have bound themselves by an enforceable contract to cause the occurrence of a chargeable act or event relating to certain land and in the same contract have bound

themselves to cause the occurrence of a further chargeable act or event or acts or events relating to the same land levy shall be chargeable only as if the carrying out of the whole contract were one chargeable act or event.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new Clause is to relieve those people who are involved in a series of transactions in land between the same parties from being charged a levy on each of the transactions. I put this rather tentatively, because there might, in the depths of all the Schedules to the Bill, be an answer to this. If there is, it has not been discovered by a number of developers to whom I have spoken and who are frightened that the normal transactions into which they enter on large developments will be caught for levy several times.
I ought again to declare an interest as I am a director of a company which is sometimes involved in this type of development. There are in the Bill various cases—A, B, C, D, E and F—under which chargeable acts or events may arise and the levy be payable. There is no relief, so far as I can see, for what one might call "quick succession", when one transaction follows another, except in one Clause, where there is a specific relief. But that does not cover the case which we have in mind in the new Clause.
I should like to give an example. In many cases of city centre development of twilight or slum areas, there is, first, a sale of the freehold by the then owner. That would be a Case A and I assume that levy would be charged. Under the same contract, there might be an agreement with the developing company to develop on that land and if the company then started that development, it would be a Case C and the levy would apparently be chargeable there. Then, when the development was complete, the building might be let back on a ground lease to the original owner of the land. This frequently happens in development schemes and, apparently, that would attract another levy.
Right hon. and hon. Members may be able to think of other combinations of several cases which may all occur in one transaction. So that it is restricted to one transaction, the new Clause defines it as being all within one contract. At present, frequently it is not within one contract, but if that were the qualification to give it exemption so that one might identify the several chargeable Acts and events as being all in one transaction,

in future developers would arrange their business so that it came within the Clause.
If the parties are charged on all these acts and events, there is bound to be overlapping and something in the nature of a double levy. That will be a deterrent to development of this sort. The suggestion in the Clause is that we look at the position of the parties at the beginning of the transaction and compare it with the position at the end and treat the whole transaction as a chargeable act or event—the difference between the situation of the parties at the beginning and at the end.
I should not have thought that the Government would want to deter this type of development. I think that we are all proud of the progress of the rebuilding of our cities so far and the plans for rebuilding in the future. Neither side would want to do anything to deter that. There is no doubt that, because of Government policy—the freeze, squeeze and so on—there is a serious contraction in building activities. We do not want to pile another deterrent on top of that and cause developers to hold off altogether.
I assure the Minister that many developers are so doubtful about the effects of the Bill, particularly its effect on the transactions about which they know so well—the sale of freehold, the development of land and lease back—that we should not do anything to deter developers from improving our cities. I hope that the Minister will say that elsewhere in the Schedule provision is made for what the new Clause seeks to achieve. If not, I hope that he will accept our proposal.

Mr. Skeffington: There are two reasons—one of a technical nature and the other the fact that the new Clause might result in widespread evasion—why my right hon. Friend cannot accept the new Clause. However, we do not rest our case on those two reasons alone.

The new Clause would not achieve the general objective outlined by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). A conveyance before the appointed day is not a chargeable act and therefore the new Clause could not apply to a case where one of a series of conveyances under a single contract had taken place before


the appointed day. Drafting in matters of this sort is difficult and I assure the hon. Gentleman that his drafting would not achieve the objective he outlined.

The new Clause is drafted in such wide terms that even if my right hon. Friend agreed with the objective of it, it would mean that people could cover themselves against liability to tax in virtually any future disposal of land by alleging that the disposal was in pursuance of a contract. It would, therefore, drive a coach and horses through this part of the Bill, although I appreciate that this may be the object of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, though possibly not of the hon. Member for Crosby. It is another reason why we cannot accept the new Clause.

There are two more fundamental reasons, both of principle, why we cannot accept the new Clause. There is the moral and philosophical case for the levy, which is that where there has been an enhancement in land values due to the action of the community, some of it should be returned to the community which has created that enhancement.

If we could have collected the levy from October, 1964, we should have been only too glad to have done so. For administrative purposes and other reasons the levy could be collected only from the appointed day, and the appointed day is a watershed and a basic principle. I appreciate that this principle may divide the two sides. It is that once a development has taken place after the appointed day, whatever the contractual obligation may have been before, there is no reason why the enhancement of the value of the land should not be subjected to levy.

The Government do not accept what may be another implication of the argument; that it would have been possible, had the owners known about the development levy and these proposals, to have secured different prices for their land at a given stage. We do not accept the view that it would be possible for the levy just to be passed on like that.

9.0 p.m.

I will not say that in no case would no part of the levy be passed on. I do not think that, administratively, it is possible to devise such a scheme. But as the scheme has been devised that will not normally be the case. The fact is that then, as now, owners of land got as much

as people were willing to pay for it, and even then it would be difficult for them to charge more in anticipation of the levy at whatever date the levy might have operated. The appointed day is a watershed. We would have liked to have collected the betterment levy or part of it sooner. We see no reason why people, even if they have made a contract, should be exempted from paying their fair share.

But if the hon. Gentleman will look at Schedule 5 he will see that in the case of quick succession there is some relief in the specific case he had in mind. It does not cover the general case to which the proposed New Clause will apply. The answer is that where there is a sale, levy is taken under Case A and where there is development only if the value is better than the Schedule 5 base value; or in the case of disposal of developed land, which the hon. Gentleman may have had in mind, no levy is charged, because it has already been taken. Therefore, in the specific case he had in mind, he has nothing to worry about. I can give him that assurance, and in the light of what I have said and because the Clause is technically defective, and would in any case wreck the Bill, I hope that he will not press it.

Mr. Eyre: Despite the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance, we still press the Government to look more closely at the new Clause. In his illustration of the moral and philosophical case for the levy, the hon. Gentleman underestimated the levy's damaging effect on the redevelopment of city centres, to which he briefly referred. The levy there will be an enormous burden. For example, it has been calculated by experts that the redevelopment of Birmingham would not have been commercially or economically possible had the levy been in operation in earlier days. We have a situation in which the Government use their overwhelming strength to make the levy, and thereby to bring about certain consequences which may not be desirable.
We say, on the ground of technicality, that there is a danger of allowing a double charging of levy, which is not the Government's purpose. Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there is a real danger of that in a number of transactions. This is of special importance in the industrial regions, where we get redevelopment and a large number of


transactions of the kind my hon. Friend has described. We press the right hon. Gentleman to examine this problem again, because there will be difficulty, and a danger of a double charge.

Mr. Manuel: I do not want to make a long speech, because we on this side want to get on with the Bill and complete the very good job we started in Committee. However, after what the House and Ministers and hon. Members on this side suffered at the beginning of our proceedings today, it should be pointed out that hon. Gentlemen opposite have fallen into a trap of their own making.
We have all the legal talents here—five Members of this House, headed by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who made such a brilliant, sarcastic speech at Blackpool. It was a bit rude, perhaps, not to call people Mr. but just use their Christian names, but the more one does that the more the audience cheers—a sure sign of ignorance. Now they group themselves together, all five of them, all legal luminaries, and bring out this contraption and bunch of words—all five of them employed for the past four days in producing something about people binding themselves under an enforceable contract
… to cause the occurrence of a chargeable act or event relating to certain land and in the same contract have bound themselves to cause the occurrence of a further chargeable act or event or acts or events relating to the same land levy shall be chargeable only as if the carrying out of the whole contract were one chargeable act or event.
Why did they not say so first? Why did they not say that a series of acts relating to one piece of land should be chargeable?

Mr. Graham Page: I have chosen only the words used by the hon. Member's Minister. They come straight out of the Bill itself.

Mr. Mannel: Of course; this is the point I am making. The whole thing that the hon. Member is complaining about he now adopts and regards as right to deal with the present position. Why steal what you think terribly bad and bring it into this new Clause?
We have enjoyed the contributions made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), both upstairs in Committee and tonight. He is very fair and we like him, but he has got a little mixed with his metaphors. He has spoken about freeze and squeeze, mixing his economic position with his courting life probably. Nevertheless we appreciate that he has at least found something in this Measure which he could copy. But the whole effect is rather lost when the Parliamentary Secretary tells us what this would do.
These five luminaries and additions brought in at the last election, who are doing very well indeed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—made contributions in Committee and today which I enjoyed, but I ask them to beware. A great many legal luminaries pass into the limbo of lost things and become entirely tarnished—old barnacles which recede into the past. I urge them not to fall into that class but to allow themselves to be persuaded by more experienced members of the legal profession here. I say to them, "Work off your own bat and chance your arm more. Then you will get on better in the Tory Party."

This new Clause has been found wanting. Although it copies something which we produced, I ask hon. Members to recognise that this is not what they really want to do. I hope they will withdraw the Clause with a good grace.

Mr. John Wells: I am delighted to be able to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). As he suggested that we might call each other by second names, perhaps I should refer to him as the hon. Member for Central and leave it at that. He gave us several hours of oration in Committee, and I am delighted that he should join with me in the attack which I mounted in Committee on the sheer mumbo-jumbo produced by the legal trade. In this House we suffer from far too many lawyers, and it is a real delight to hear people like the hon. Member attacking them. Unfortunately, on this occasion his usually sharp arrows went entirely the wrong way and were extremely blunt. The new Clause was ably proposed. Its purpose was clearly set out in plain language which even I could understand. Any sensible person could understand it.
I deplore the fact that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire attacked this simple


stuff. He has only to look at the Bill to find some lawyers jargon. The content of the Bill is deplorable. He was not justified in attacking this extremely good, well-drafted Clause. No doubt the Clause does not do what it was meant to do. However, we on this side do not enjoy the benefit of a massive army of civil servants and Parliamentary draftsmen, an army which is becoming more and more numerous every day, all at the taxpayer's expense. The Bill will cost £45 million. The cost of the mere preparation of the Bill, the mounting of the exercise put on by the Labour Party, was massive. And the taxpayer pays.
We on this side are making a reasonable attempt to improve the Bill. The Bill is not the first one that the Labour Government produced on this subject. We had a preview of the beastly thing. Yet the Minister, although he had a previous canter to get himself warmed up, had to produce a mass of Amendments in Committee, the debates on which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and myself listened to for long hours. The hon. Gentleman had the neck to grumble at my hon. Friends for a little simple drafting, but the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, with the massive staff at their disposal, have made a rare nonsense of the whole affair.
Their first Bill was bad. They produced a second one which was not much better. Then the Minister had to produce I do not know how many hundreds of Amendments in Committee. When I tackled him about this in Committee, he asked me whether I did not want him to improve the Bill. I suppose I want him to improve it, but I would much rather he threw it out.
Now there is this mass of Government amendments on Report. It is a disgrace that the Minister, with the massive army he has behind him, could not have produced something better at the beginning. I take the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire seriously to task for grumbling at my hon. Friends for producing this simple Clause.
I turn now to the Clause. [Laughter.] One must listen to what the Minister says. This is a penance for having served on the Standing Committee. We listened to far too much of what he said. But

we must listen to him on this matter. I hope that when the Bill reaches another place there will be yet another batch of Government Amendments. I am sure that in the not too distant future we shall have consideration of Lords Amendments. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place the Minister will have taken close note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) with a view to doing what he can to prevent there being double taxation. I know that the Government have pretended all along that this is not a tax, but the Parliamentary Secretary used that very word a very short time ago. This is a tax. On development of city centre property and redevelopment of twilight area property, it may well be a double tax frequently.

Mr. Skeffington: Mr. Skeffington indicated dissent.

Mr. Wells: I hope that the Minister will take time to consult the army to which I have referred and who sit behind him at the moment—a very fair army. I hope that somebody in the Government understands this matter. We know that the Minister does not. We know that the Parliamentary Secretary half does. When the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have had time to take advice from those to whom I have referred, I hope that there will be some Lords Amendments to deal with this point.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1.—(THE LAND COMMISSION.)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 19, to leave out from 'such' to 'character' in line 20 and to insert:
'regulations whether of a national, regional or local'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we discuss at the same time Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'directions' and insert 'regulations'.

Amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 37, leave out 'directions' and insert 'regulations'.

And Amendment No. 25, in line 42, leave out 'directions' and insert 'regulations'.

Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The four Amendments go together. May I explain how it would read in the Bill if it were accepted? I refer hon. Members to Clause 1(3) which, as it stands, says that
The Commission—

(a) in the performance of their functions under Part II of this Act shall comply with such directions, whether of a general or a specific character, and
(b) in the performance of their other functions under this Act shall comply with such directions of a general character,

as may be given to them by the appropriate Minister or Ministers.

This Clause has a history. Before I give the history perhaps I might read into Clause 1(3,a) the words which I wish to put there in place of some which are there now. Paragraph (a) would read:
'.. in the performance of their functions under Part il of this Act the Commission shall comply with such regulations, whether of a national, regional or local character … as may be given to them by the appropriate Minister or Ministers.

In the first Bill presented by the Government, the Minister could give general directions—not specific directions but just general directions. The Minister argued strongly that this was all that the Minister should do with regard to a public body of this sort—that he should merely give general directions. When the second Bill appeared we had the wording inserted which is in print now—that the Minister can give to the Commission specific directions when they are carrying out their functions under Part II, which is the part which gives the Commission power to deal with land, to acquire either compulsorily or by agreement any property in the country and to manage that property, to dispose of it, to sell it as Crownhold, to give it away as Crownhold to somebody, we know not whom. These are the functions under Part II of the Bill.

If the Minister is given power to give specific directions to the Commission, then he can say to the Commission, "You will compulsorily acquire Mr. Brown's house". I do not mean to refer to anybody in particular. This is purely a fictional character—Mr. Brown. The Minister can direct the Commission in such specific and detailed matters as that.

I do not know what the Minister's idea is. I thought that the idea of the Bill was that the Commission should be an independent undertaking, that it should carry out its functions as a non-political body. But here the Minister is retaining for himself the power to direct it in its dealings if he chooses to do so. I say that he is retaining it for himself. We do not know how long he and his Ministry will remain. We do not know who "the appropriate Minister or Ministers" will be. Again I am not speaking of personalities. As far as one can forecast, the Minister who will be able to give specific direction under the Clause will be the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is the Minister who decides planning decisions and so on. To some extent he will be a judge in his own cause.

I think that it is extremely dangerous that he should be given this power without Parliament knowing what is happening. Parliament will be told about these directions when an annual report is made to Parliament. Under a later Clause the Commission has to state in that Report the directions which it has been given by the Minister. That is all too late. It is a year out of date, perhaps. It is when these specific directions are given that the House should know about them.

These directions—and I hope hon. Members realise it—may bring into operation against a specific piece of land special procedures which the Commission can adopt. It can seize land, houses, offices or factories at almost a moment's notice without any public inquiry if the special procedure is adopted. The whole ownership and occupation of that property can be transferred to the Commission without the owner or the occupier having to sign one single document.

The Commission can be directed by the Minister to make what is called a general vesting declaration, which is merely a declaration, "The Commission owns your house". That is all it does. There is no conveyance of the house at all. It is seized in a very short time. That is what can happen within some specific direction which the Minister can give to the Commission. One must realise what is set in motion by this.

If the Amendment were accepted, any direction of this sort would have to be made by regulation and in a later Clause


any regulations made by the Minister have to come before the House subject to the Statutory Instrument procedure of possible annulment. That would be some protection for the citizen against political use of this power—and I cannot see any reason for retaining such power if it is not to be used for political uses.

In Committee, the Minister was most courteous on a similar Amendment in showing that he would like to meet us in some way in order to ensure that specific directions were used for a proper purpose. What he thought would be a proper purpose was, I think, that a specific direction could be used regionally or locally to concentrate some particular type of work in a particular area in order to give priority to certain activities where it was needed.

I would not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman in the use of specific directions for that purpose. I can see perfectly well that, in certain localities, it might be advisable for the Minister to direct the Commission to undertake certain work in a general way. If it was necessary to move employment into a district, if a factory were setting up there and the Commission had not realised the importance of providing for the workers in that factory, it would be right for the Minister to give a direction of some sort and see that the Commission used such powers as were needed or were not being exercised by the local authority.

But this is something quite different from just baldly saying in the Bill, "specific directions". In order to try to meet the ideas which the right hon. Gentleman put forward in Committee, I have taken the words from the White Paper, "National, regional or local". They appear where it is stated in the White Paper that the purposes of the Bill are to bring forward land required for development for national, regional or local development plans. If the specific directions from the Minister could fit into that sort of definition, we should have no objection, although we should want to know about them at once.

There is no reason for giving the Minister power to give these directions under the counter, as it were, without disclosing them to the House. After all, he is responsible to Parliament and why should he

wish to hide any directions which he gives to the Commission? Let us have them in the straightforward and frank way of regulations which come before the House and which can be annulled if the House sees fit, and let them be restricted to a general type of direction. If the word "general" is too general, let us say that he must bring them within a locality direction, a regulation relating to a locality and to satisfy the House that when he makes the regulations they are made for some valid purpose.

As the Clause stands, it is most dangerous from the point of view of the individual, the individual owner of property and the individual citizen, who could be picked out for some direction from the Minister. This is the sort of thing which should not appear in a Bill of this kind and it is something which we most strongly oppose.

Mr. Willey: As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is a matter which was discussed in the Standing Committee when both sides appreciated the difficulties. The hon. Gentleman has conceded the major difficulty in saying that a general direction might well be too general. For that reason, we imported the notion of a direction of a specific character. Following our discussion in Committee, I considered whether an alternative to "specific" could be provided, but I have not been able to find it. I gave an assurance that one would not use such a power of direction in individual cases.
There are difficulties about the notion which the hon. Gentleman has introduced. He is with me in saying that he would provide for the directions to be of a national, regional or local character, but my advice is that there would be major difficulties of interpretation if the word "local" were used and I am driven back to the use of "specific", and that is why we provide for the general or specific character of the directions.
The other point which the hon. Gentleman made was constitutionally quite wrong. We are concerned with an executive act and to substitute regulations for directions would be constitutionally quite wrong. This is to be—and again this is precedented—a direction, and a direction, as the hon. Gentleman was fair enough to point out, is subject to report and the


Minister who makes the direction is responsible to Parliament. But a regulation is an extension of an Act of Parliament and is a legislative act; it is wrong to provide for an executive act to be translated into the form of regulations. It also implies quite the wrong relationship between the Minister and the House and the Minister and the Commission. For these reasons, the difficulty of accepting the Amendment without running into major difficulties of interpretation which would affect the Commission and more especially because regulations would be quite the wrong instrument, I reject the Amendment. What one has to do here is to follow well-accepted precedents. This is a matter for direction, and if we made it subject to regulation we should be breaching the proper constitutional relationship of a Minister to the House.

9.30 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I heard with some disappointment the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I also heard it with some surprise, since he seeks to found his argument on a constitutional basis, in attempting to mark out a special province for directions in the constitutional doctrine of this country. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman and I came into the House at the same time. He will recall that in those far-off days we used to have debates into the question of directions being a form of sub-subordinate legislation.
The parentage of directions as a feature in our constitutional administration is not of any great antiquity or any very great respectability. I am rather surprised that after a little over 20 years I should hear directions being credited with this ancient and traditional constitutional aura, with which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to invest them. I have what I think is a more traditional and respectable view of our constitutional processes and practices. What we do not do or what we have not been habituated to do, is to give a power of executive direction in regard to specific personal matters. That is what is done by this Clause as it stands.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he chose the word "specific" because he was unable to find an alternative to the word "general". I must indicate to him and the House that the word "specific" in this context, a direction of a specific

character, is very specific indeed. Here we are talking in the context of Part II of this Bill, which deals with the compulsory acquisition of land.
It is not appropriate for a commission to receive a specific direction, not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny or control, to effect a compulsory acquisition of the land or property of the individual citizen. In my submission that is not in accordance with the constitutional and democratic fabric of this nation. The right hon. Gentleman then goes on to say that this may seem rather ominous—1 paraphrase his observations—if one reads the words of the Statute au pied de la lettre, but that they are reasonable people in the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, and they would never use these powers in the way that, theoretically, they would be entitled to do.
That argument never sounds very powerful in my ears, the less so in this specific case because the right hon. Gentleman, as we understand it, in the language of the law, is a tenant at will—or is he a tenant at sufferance? Anyway, he is on a very precarious tenure indeed. Even if he were in one of the more established tenures of Departmental office, I would still invite the House to reject this argument. The law has to be interpreted in the courts and the courts interpret the law in accordance with the Statues that Parliament has seen fit to enact. Ministerial utterances, even in the House of Commons have no weight in law. It is a very bad constitutional practice to give powers which should not be given merely on the ipse dixit of a Minister—and Ministers, in the eighteenth century phrase, are transient and embarrassed phantoms, especially the present ones—that he will not make full use of them.
There is a wider point which should properly be made in the general context from a constitutional point of view. I am one of those who believe that this country, and this House in particular, has a considerable rôle to play in the second half of the twentieth century in showing to the emergent territories a pattern of viable democratic constitutional procedure. We do not help ourselves in discharging that important rôle if those to whom we preach this doctrine are able to point to provisions in our Statute law which show that on the specific directive


of a Minister, not subject to Parliamentary control, the rights of citizens can be expropriated. They look at the laws which we enact and do not qualify them by the reservations which the Minister has put before us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has done a considerable service both within the context of the Bill and within the broader context of the constitutional life of this nation and the example which we can set in tabling this Amendment. I hops that the Minister, who has shown signs of appreciating this point and of not being entirely happy about it, will, even at this late hour, have further and better thoughts.

Mr. Rossi: The Minister is well aware that he is breaking a fundamental constitutional principle in asking for general and specific powers in this Bill, because this matter has been well debated in two Standing Committees. It was first debated in Standing Committee F in February last when the Minister was in the curious position of having to defend the Bill, which merely related to general principles, against back benchers of his who wished an Amendment to be inserted giving him power to make specific directions as well as general directions.
I should like to call in aid, as I have done once before in Committee, the statements which the Parliamentary Secretary made in Standing Committee F when he was resisting the suggestion that the Minister should have the power to make specific directions. He said:
… the general view has been taken, I think, on both sides of the Committee, that once Parliament has decided the general principles and the Minister is thereafter responsible to Parliament for the operation of the concern or whatever it is, if the body is then to be effective and not a mere appendage of a Government Department, it should be allowed considerable individual initiative.
He went on to say that the proposal to include specific directions was
a very big constitutional change. I do not think it is justified by the experience we have. … it might lead to undesirable interference by the Minister in individual cases which would make the work of the Commission very difficult.
These are the Parliamentary Secretary's own words on a constitutional matter of the greatest importance. Yet here he is,

with the Minister, trying to drive a coach and horses through that fundamental constitutional principle, and not one valid reason does he give except that, although he is asking for these powers, he does not intend to use them. Why on earth have them, particularly when they are a breach of our constitution?
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say in Committee:
The Minister is responsible to Parliament for the general direction, and the executive body ought to get on with its own duties. It is because we feel that the Amendment would breach that constitutional principle that we resist it.
Why insist upon it now if at the time it was objectionable to have the power for a Minister to make a specific direction.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on in that Committee with a number of other arguments about why the Minister should not have power to make specific directions. He said that for only the Commission to have the power to make specific directions
makes for the smoothest working and gives the greatest efficiency.
Perhaps he does not want to make for the greatest efficiency and the smoothest working of the Land Commission. In that we may well applaud him, because we do not want it either.
We asked earlier what had occasioned this fundamental change of mind which had taken place. Another reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary in February was that
it would place on the Minister an impossible burden which hitherto has not been acceptable as constitutional doctrine by either major parties or public opinion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 17th February, 1966; cc. 37, 44 and 38.]
When we came to the second Standing Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary did not think that it was such an intolerable burden for the Minister to make these specific directions in individual cases. And so it went on with one reason after another on that occasion, even appeals to natural justice, about why the Minister should resist being given the power to make specific directions. Today, however, he is asking that this power be given to him without any cogent reason. When we pressed him about this in Standing Committee E and


asked him to give use examples of the kind of cases in which he was prepared or thought it necessary to make specific directions—

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley): I am a constituent of the hon. Member. Just over 10 years ago, Lord South wood died. His estate of 3¼ acres was then valued at £11,000 or £12,000. The hon. Member knows this because he was a member of the Hornsey Borough Council. When the estate was finally sold, the Hornsey Borough Council could not buy the land and it was sold for £110,000, £111,000 or £112,000. Is that natural justice? The Bill seeks to undo that natural injustice.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Intervention, like speeches, must bear relation to the Amendment.

An Hon. Member: Get back to the Foreign Office.

Mr. Rossi: I was saying that the Minister has given no instance of the type of case in which he considered a specific direction necessary. The examples which he gave us were of directions of a regional character, and a regional character alone. He confessed his inability to give any instance of the specific direction in individual cases that he would like to make, whether it was the Southwood estate or something else. I will deal with Southwood Lodge presently to the extent that it is of interest to the House.

Mr. Willey: What I said, on the contrary, was that there was no intention of exercising such specific directions in individual cases.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Rossi: Well, I said on that occasion in Committee, and the Minister agreed with me at that time:
The difficulty appears to be one of definition rather than of general intent. We believe that the Minister should only make general directions and the Commission should have its own individuality and be allowed to make its own decisions on matters of detail."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th June, 1966; c. 44.]
When asked to give an example he gave an example of a regional character. Would it be possible to make a definition of a

general character when dealing with a region? This point was emphasised repeatedly, and the Minister, in his reply to me, said:
I confess that I have had difficulty in finding the proper words and these are the best I have been able to find so far. Of course, I am willing to reconsider the matter and to see whether it is possible to get other words …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th June, 1966; c. 45.]
He was conceding at that time that what he had in mind were directions of a regional or local character.
All we are seeking to do by this Amendment now is to find words which he was then unable to find to give expression to his avowed intention in this matter; that and no more. We have supplied him with the words, and we believe that these are words which would work, and if the Minister is really genuine in his contention that he does not want specific powers to act in individual cases, because this would be a constitutional breach, as the Parliamentary Secretary said so powerfully on another occasion, let him accept this Amendment which would limit him to the type of case he is saying he needs these powers for. Let us see the extent to which he is being genuine with this House over this matter.
So far as Southwood House is concerned, I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that that house was sold at a very high price, because development permission was given for that site after the house had been in the hands of a particular family for a large number of years, and it was sold at a price which the local authority could not afford to pay. I was chairman of the housing committee at that time. The local authority wished to acquire that site for a housing association, and we went into this matter very carefully with the Ministry, and we were told that the economic rent which would have to be charged for that site if it was to be developed for a housing association would make it not economically viable for our purposes. But do not forget that that is a district——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Amendment we are discussing.

Mr. Rossi: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment is whether the words should be
of a general or a specific character
or
of a national, regional or local character".

Mr. Rossi: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should not have allowed myself to be sidetracked.

Mr. Padley: On a point of order. If the power which we are now debating had been in existence Hornsey Borough Council would have been able to have served the interests of the general inhabitants of the Borough of Hornsey.

Mr. Rippon: Further to that point of order. Why does not the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs leave our debate and go back to the Foreign Office and work out how much Gibraltar is worth?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that was not a point of order.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I had not intended to intervene in the debate on this Amendment, and particularly was it not my intention to intervene after having listened with admiration to the speeches in support of it by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), but I have a contribution which I hope may assist the House.
Both sides of the House would possibly agree that this Clause 1 puts wholly unprecedented powers into the hands of the Executive, powers which could be used dangerously with regard to the liberties and rights of the individual citizens. Of course, I accept the protestations of the Minister that he would not dream of using those powers. Then why take them? Nevertheless, I accept it from him, but can that be said of all his successors who will hold the portfolio which he now holds and exercise the powers given by this Clause?
The word "constitutional" has been used by almost all my hon. Friends in reference to the powers which are being taken. In this country, the word "constitional" in one sense means little, because

we have no written constitution. Parliament is supreme. What Parliament says goes, and Parliament makes the law. Parliament can do anything by Statute, if it is prepared to go so far, and make any law. All the more does it behove us to be careful of the powers which we give the Executive.
In Clause after Clause, the Bill gives wholly unprecedented powers to the Executive which are not necessary even for the purposes of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I believe that many of those powers are being taken under the pressure of the sort of emotionalism which was exhibited just now by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs who intervened in the terms that he did, citing a case about which I know nothing. But I have no hesitation in saying that if that is the kind of emotion behind——

Mr. Padley: rose—

Mr. Grieve: No, I do not give way. Behind the powers which are being taken is the attitude which would punish anyone and everyone and deprive the individual citizens of the country of their rights in a form and in terms of a kind which have never been used against our citizens before.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I cannot understand why the Government do not accept the Amendment, and I should like to explain why.
In this country, we have always tried to follow the principle that the law must be certain as far as possible. As I understand it, that means that the Executive would not wish the public to be unaware of the rules governing any particular circumstance. I cannot envisage that the Ministry for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible would give directions of which the public were unaware. If they are to be aware of the directions, there is no reason why they should not be in the form of regulations. If they are in the form of regulations, they are known to the public, and they are of a national, regional or local character. Therefore, everything which the right hon. Gentleman apparently wishes to achieve, including the reserve power which he wishes to retain and which he does not intend to use but wants to keep just in case, would


be achieved if he accepted the Amendment. I cannot understand why he does not accept it.

Mr. John Wells: I wish to ask the Minister one small specific point. I cannot remember, and I should be grateful if he could refresh my memory, whether the Ombudsman, or whatever he is to be called, would have power to inquire into cases, particularly if directions of a specific character are maintained.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I have tried to follow the argument of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. As I understand it, they are saying that, by this Amendment, if the Minister wishes to give a direction to the Land Commission that it shall acquire No. 28 Oxford Street, it should be done in the form of a regulation which is subject to annulment by a Resolution of the House. I find it a little incongruous that the Land Commission itself could make a compulsory purchase order to acquire No. 28 Oxford Street and the Minister would be able to confirm that direction without any reference to Parliament. I should like it explained to me what difference there is. It is suggested that the Commission may do an act which the Minister cannot do save with the permission of Parliament. I also find it difficult to understand why right hon. and hon. Members opposite quarrel with the description of a general or specific character. Presumably they would not have minded had the Minister included in the Bill simply the words, "shall comply with such directions", and not attempted to define them in any way. I find it difficult to accept the argument that this is attacking some constitutional principle.
The New Towns Act of 1966, although passed by a Labour Administration, was the result of a New Towns Commission set up during the war by a Coalition Government. Section 2(3) of that Act says:
Without prejudice to any provision of this Act requiring the consent of the Minister to be obtained for anything to be done by a

development corporation, the Minister may give directions to any such corporation for restricting the exercise by them of any of their powers under this Act, or for requiring them to exercise those powers in any manner specified in the directions …"

That is a statutory provision enabling the Minister to give directions, whether of a general or specific character, and I say again——

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If my recollection serves me right, I do not think that we had the pleasure of having the hon. Gentleman here in 1946. He must not suppose that the New Towns Bill as it was, the New Towns Act of 1946 as it now is, went through this House without searching and constructive criticism from these benches. That is one of the Measures which I had in mind when I reminded the right hon. Gentleman that this matter of giving ministerial directions had been the subject of animated debate in those years.

Mr. Robinson: I had not the good fortune to be a Member at that time. It was a belated honour which I conferred on the House in arriving in 1966. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is assuring me that he attacked this provision, I accept what he says, but the fact remains that it has been on the Statute Book since 1946, even during 13 years of Conservative Administration without being amended.
I have had experience of serving with a new town corporation, and I had never heard of a case where hardship has been caused by the ability of the Minister to give directions. I stress again that that Act gives the Minister power to give directions on any matter in respect of which a corporation may exercise its powers and restrict them. It is not limited to a general character. These directions can be specific, as well as general, and I fail to see the alleged constitutional point which is put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 129.

Division No. 183.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Anderson, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Albu, Austen
Armstrong, Ernest
Baxter, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Alldritt, Walter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bence, Cyril


Allen, Scholefield
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)




Binns, John
Garrett, W. E.
O'Malley, Brian


Bishop, E. S.
Garrow, Alex
Orbach, Maurice


Blackburn, F.
Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Oswald, Thomas


Boardman, H.
Gregory, Arnold
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Booth, Albert
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Boyden, James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, Walter


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Palmer, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brooks, Edwin
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, Trevor


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pentland, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Haseldine, Norman
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hazed, Bert
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Cant, R. B.
Henig, Stanley
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horner, John
Probert, Arthur


Coe, Denis
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Randall, Harry


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Rankin, John


Concannon, J. D.
Howie, W.
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hoy, James
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Croslana, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hunter, Adam
Rose, Paul


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dalyell, Tarn
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Delargy, Hugh
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Dickens, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snow, Jullan


Dobson, Ray
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunn, James A.
Loughiin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Swingler, Stephen


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b's)
McCann, John
Thornton, Ernest


Eadie, Alex
Macdonald, A. H.
Tinn, James


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Varley, Eric G.


Ellis, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


English, Michael
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ensor, David
Mapp, Charles
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marquand, David
Wnltaker, Ben


Faulds, Andrew
Maxwell, Robert
Whitlock, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Finch, Harold
Minan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast w.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Floud, Benard
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woof, Robert


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moyle, Roland
Zilliacus, K.


Ford, Ben
Neal, Harold



Forrester, John
Newens, Stan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fowler, Gerry
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Galpern, Sir Myer
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Neil McBride.


Gardner, Tony
Ogden, Eric





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, Gordon
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carlisle, Mark
Fortescue, Tim


Astor, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Foster, Sir John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Clark, Henry
Gibson-Watt, David


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Cooke, Robert
Glover, Sir Douglas


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Gower, Raymond


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dance, James
Grant-Ferris, R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Grieve, Percy


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Gurden, Harold


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eden, Sir John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Errington, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eyre, Reginald
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Farr, John
Hastings, Stephen


Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel







Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hiley, Joseph
Monro, Hector
Smith, John


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hooson, Emlyn
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Talbot, John E.


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Neave, Airey
Thorpe, Jeremy


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tilney, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Onslow, Cranley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Kimball, Marcus
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Kirk, Peter
Pardoe, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Webster, David


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Loveys, W, H.
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitelaw, William


MacArthur, Ian
Pounder, Rafton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Pym, Francis
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ramsden, Rt. H. James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McMaster, Stanley
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Worsley, Marcus


Maginnis, John E.
Ridsdale, Julian
Wylie, N. R.


Marten, Neil
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Younger, Hn. George


Maude, Angus
Roots, William



Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Jasper More.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Land Commission Bill may be entered upon and proceded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Willey.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 3.—(ADVANCES OUT OF CONSOLIDATED FUND.)

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 12, to leave out from 'sums' to 'as' in line 16.
The effect of the Amendment is that the Minister or Ministers would have to come to the House to ask for the necessary cash to keep the Land Commission going in its undertakings. The point is that he would have to come to the House and ask for much smaller sums than those already written into the Bill. The House may consider this a cumbersome method, but we on this side think that, in the present circumstances, this is a necessary procedure. The way in which it would have to be done, of course, is by an affirmative Resolution of the House.
It is significant that our deliberations in Committee on Clause 3 took place on 21st June, 29 days before the inglorious statement by the Prime Minister to the House on 20th July. In effect, what the right hon. Gentleman did that day was to squeeze the squeeze even tighter and, of course, we also got the freeze. Yesterday

we debated the implementation of Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act. It is no wonder that some hon. Gentlemen opposite are somewhat restive. The squeeze and the freeze is unpalatable, but what the Government are trying to do now is to squeeze the freeze of the national economic orange and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is interesting, but the hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Baker: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but whether or not hon. Gentlemen opposite like it, according to this Measure, the Government must find £45 million and, in the present state of the nation's finances, that is, to say the least, a difficult job.
If that is not enough, the Government must squeeze the national economic orange again to bring in another £30 million, this to finance the totally irrelevant and unworkable Land Commission Bill. Is this showing a return of confidence to the nation in our economic affairs? Is it the way to return confidence to our overseas friends in these critical days? Should we be giving power to the Government to spend vast sums of money which we can ill afford at a time when we are very much up against it?
The Government are squandering the country's money on a dogmatic irrelevancy, and that is why the Opposition say that, in the present circumstances, the Government should come before the House—that is, if the Measure becomes an Act—and ask for money as it is required and not be allowed such enormous


sums as £45 million and £75 million to carry on with.
We are told that about £7 million a year is needed for administration. How much has already been spent—before the Commission has been set up? My hon. Friends and I are supposed to act as watchdogs for the nation and we are not prepared to see this money being spent in this way. We want to know on what it is being spent.

Sir D. Glover: I support the Amendment. The Opposition is indeed the watchdog of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) need not have used the prefix "we are supposed to be". It is our job and duty to observe what the Government are doing—[Interruption.]—I will treat that interruption from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) with the contempt it deserves. The hon. Gentleman, who has not had the courtesy to attend our deliberations, does not know what we are discussing and is saying something from a comatose position. His remarks, whatever they are, do not even deserve my pausing to make this comment.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: rose—

Sir D. Glover: I will not give way.

Mr. Maxwell: Typical.

Sir D. Glover: If the hon. Gentleman interrupts from a comatose position I will not give way. I will now continue with what I had intended to say——

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell: Windy !

Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate has so far proceeded in an orderly way. If hon. Members do not wish to listen to it, there is no reason for them to stay.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood you to say that this debate has so far gone on in an orderly way. I would draw your attention to the complete rebellion of hon. Members opposite early in the day against your Rulings, and they continued to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for returning to the support he gave me earlier.

Mr. Graham Page: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to pursue the points of order we pursued this afternoon.

Mr. Graham Page: I did not intend to refer to that point, Mr. Speaker, but to the words of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who said that we on this side had rebelled against your Rulings. We have done nothing of the sort.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not going to have an inquest on what went on earlier today.

Sir D. Glover: I accept entirely that we are not to have an inquest on the points of order raised earlier in the debate; I only wish that we were holding an inquest on this Bill——

Mr. Rippon: We are.

Sir D. Glover: If this House of Commons has a responsibility of trying to protect the individual citizen and the individual taxpayer, of guiding the nation and seeing that the collection and disbursement of money is done in a sane and sensible manner, it has the right to demand that the money it votes will be placed in the hands of those who understand the Measure under which they will disburse that money. Nothing so far, on Second Reading, in Standing Committee or now on Report has convinced me that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary understands anything like the implications and ramifications that will become law if this Bill later gets its Third Reading.
Without this Amendment, the House would be asked to provide an initial sum of £45 million, with the probability of another £30 million—£75 million in all. In 1947 we had another very complicated Measure, which was found to be unworkable. Even from the other side of the House I have heard very few hon. Members who would protect or defend the ramifications of that long-deceased Measure. We are now dealing with a Bill which is even more complicated, even less clear——

Mr. Manuel: Deal with the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I am dealing with the Amendment. We are dealing with a Bill


with far greater ramifications, and which is drawn in a much more woolly fashion and is far more uncertain in its effects on the ordinary citizen. Once we have voted the money by which the Measure can be operated the House will have lost control of the workings of the Measure. I therefore support my hon. Friend when he says that we should not allow all this money to be voted at this time, but should demand that when the Bill becomes an Act the Government should come here when they find they need money in smaller sums, and seek an affirmative Resolution. The House would then keep some control over what went on under what would then be the Act.
Unless the Amendment is accepted, we are being asked to provide, initially, £45 million to buy land, we know not where and, at this moment of time, we are being asked to place that money in the hands of a man, we know not whom. it certainly will not be the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that once he gets this great mausoleum on the Statute Book he is immediately to be put inside it and buried. This is his swan-song; he is committing hara-kari. The moment Parliament says that this Bill has received the Royal Assent the right hon. Gentleman ceases to be a Minister—and what a memorial he will have!
The right hon. Gentleman who will be responsible for the administration of this Measure has not had the courtesy to come to the House to listen to our debates. He is asking that Parliament should give him £45 million, rising to £75 million, to deal with problems which everyone throughout our debates has made quite clear cannot be understood, even by learned silks. Learned silks are desperately worried about how this Bill will operate in practice.
Leaving aside all the ideological differences between the two sides of the House, the smallest piece of common wisdom that this House could show would be to keep control of the financial implications of the Bill much more intimately in its hands so that if the fears of this side of the House are borne out in practice the House will be able to say, "This money is being wastefully expended and we shall not grant approval to the next affirmative Order."

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: rose—

Sir D. Glover: No. I shall not give way. It seems only common prudence that this House as its bounden duty should keep far more control of the financial implications of the Bill. For that reason I hope that the Minister and the House will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Rippon: I hope that the Minister will be disposed to give us some more information about the finances of this Measure. I am sure he must agree that my hon. Friends must be right in saying that in the present state of the economy there is very little prospect of justifying expenditure of the order of £45 million to £75 million. According to subsection (6) no Order can be made before it has been laid before the Commons. We are saying that it would be much more realistic not to put in any figure but for the Government to have to come to the House in due course for such sums of money as the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be disposed to allow the Minister to have.
I hope the Minister will take this opportunity of telling us what he has refused to tell us so far—what the yield of the levy will be and if any moneys are expended under the Bill what return he expects for them, what reduction of Corporation Tax and other taxes already borne by the wretched subjects of Her Majesty there may be. I hope he will also take the opportunity to tell us something more of the proportion of these sums which he expects to be absorbed simply by the cost of administration. A great many people feel certain that the estimates of sums of money which the Minister has so far suggested will be expended on administration are far too low.
It is quite ludicrous to imagine that this Measure will be administered by a staff of only 2,000 civil servants. When people say that it will take up the time of 2,000 civil servants they are utterly underestimating the burden on the administration. If the Government are to try to operate the Bill at any sort of scale of the order of millions of pounds the Minister will find that very much larger staffs will be required. We should have some assurances from the Minister on the cost of administration.
What estimate has the Minister made of the demands which will be made on


the national labour force to cope with the Bill? If the Government proceed to implement the Measure to any great extent when it is on the Statute Book, regard will have to be paid, not only to the number of civil servants who will have to be employed, but also to the number of people in the learned professions, in estate agents' offices, and in valuers' and surveyors' offices.
Has the Minister made any estimate of the number of millions of man hours which will be spent in considering the number of transactions he has in mind in the first year or so of the operation of the Bill? I hope that at the earliest opportunity the Minister will give us some idea of when he expects to come forward with any Order, how much money will be employed on administration, how much has already been spent, whether he has any reason to change his views on the number of civil servants who will be employed on administering the Measure, and whether he is now able to tell us, as he should do before the Bill passes from this stage, what he estimates the net yield from the Measure will be.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I intervene now only because I was not able to persuade the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) to give way to me. I cannot understand the Amendment, purely on the basis of the question of Parliamentary control. I have here the precedent of an Act passed under a Conservative Administration. I was not here at the time. The precedent is Section 9 of the Housing Act, 1964, which deals with advances by the Secretary of State to the Housing Corporation. That Section is almost identical with this Clause. Under the Bill the amount of advances which can be made at any one time is £45 million. Under the 1964 Act the amount is £50 million. The aggregate amount under this Bill is £75 million. Under the 1964 Act it is £100 million.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) will forgive me if I do not follow him, because I am not really concerned with what may or may not have been done by a Conservative Government. I am more interested in

the subject before the House. Whether the Clause is right or wrong, the House will generally agree that it is an expensive provision. Very large sums of money are involved. The Clause is rather ambiguously drawn. I take it that what is meant by
The aggregate amount outstanding by way of principal 
is not the outstanding amount which might at any time be granted but is the total sum which, under the provisions of the Bill, could at any time be granted. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that that is the correct interpretation, because it is a rather unusual way of quoting money.
Obviously this matter must be regarded as important by the Government, because this is being done at a time of great financial stringency. Only 24 hours ago the Leader of the House was justifying certain provisions which many people regard as being oppressive on trade unions. As this provision is brought forward at a time of economic stringency, it is obvious that the Government regard it as very important. It seems to be some indication of the Government's vagueness about the sum of money that they want that they ask for £45 million but then say that their estimates could be wrong to such an extent that they would like an extra £30 million if the occasion demands it. They presumably hope that by having this Clause they will not have to present a Supplementary Estimate; they will not have to go through the normal procedure of satisfying the Treasury and the relevant Departments; and they will not have to run the gauntlet of the Select Committee on Estimates. They will ask for £45 million. Then, if they find that they have blown it rather quicker than they had thought, which will probably be the case, they will have an open-ended subsidy of up to £30 million. This is an extraordinary way of asking the House for money. However, it is true that the draft Order must be laid before the House.
To reply shortly to the short speech made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East, I should have thought that the fact that a Tory Government previously did this was one of the strongest arguments against perpetuating this method. This is an argument which


should at least commend itself to the hon. Gentleman. There is no reason why this Labour Government should be conservative in everything: they might make an exception.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I expressed amazement at the inconsistency of hon. Members opposite. Perhaps I ought not to be amazed at it.

Mr. Thorpe: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not think he should be amazed. He shows a delightful and charming naivety which many of us have grown out of. It is refreshing to find it in the House.
This is a most incredible proposal. The Government are asking for £45 million to be granted. It has not been costed. There are no details of how this money is to be used, or for what purpose. It may be that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to give us a breakdown. This is a very large sum of money. It is so imprecise in the minds of the Government that they have persuaded the draftsmen to provide for this sum to be increased by nearly two-thirds without any necessity of coming to the House for a supplementary estimate but by merely laying a draft order which can be pushed through with the help of the Whips——

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman in his approach to this question raised by the Amendment is very timid. He has retreated from the party lines. His party was going to take much more than £45 million. The hon. Gentleman is in full retreat from these great philosophies which built up his party, and this departure from those philosophies is what has possibly caused the party's recession into the state that it is in.

Mr. Thorpe: The great difference is that the proposals in those days were carefully costed. [Laughter.] Then why did the Labour Members at the time support those proposals in this House? It was because they were costed; they were realistic. [An HON. MEMBER: "Because they were not costed."] That may be so. There may have been some hon. Members who were hoodwinked into thinking that the whole of the valuation system was carefully inquired into. But if the hon. Member will do a little research

and read the reports of some of the speeches when those measures were introduced, he will find that they were considerably more thought out than these. No Minister would have asked for £45 million and at the same time have said, "If we find we are wrong, could we have an extra £30 million later?"
This Measure is introduced by a Minister who is in a state of semi-limbo. In fact, it might be a Parliamentary sweepstake as to who is going into limbo first—the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary. It might well be a competition to decide who will be the first to retire under the Government's redundancy scheme. This is an abuse of the House, and certainly it is a profligate way of spending public money. It is an attempt to take away Parliamentary control from this House.

Mr. Skeflington: I am sure the House will not expect me at this late hour to deal with all the philosophical overtones particularly from the mover of the Amendment. This matter has been decided twice, in this House on Second Reading and before the people in the country. My duty is to state what would be the effect of the Amendment and to advise the House to reject it.

The mover of the Amendment, so far as his argument was serious—which I took it to be—was expressing the desire to devise some system whereby there would be prudent and wise management of funds which would be at the disposal of the Land Commission. The hon. Gentleman has chosen a singularly ineffective way to do it.

The Amendment would require the Minister to make an Order, subject to affirmative Resolution procedure, for the money out of the Consolidated Fund. In effect, he would have to lay an Order for the whole of the £45 million, the sum carefully calculated to be required as a float for the early years of operation. The Commission would be in possession of that sum which, for some period, it might not require fully to use.

Under existing arrangements, however, the Treasury will make advances to the Commission on a daily basis, as it were. Thus, the money allocated will be prudently and carefully managed by the Treasury, with its skilful management, as is the case with other bodies of a


similar character to the Land Commission. Such careful control could not apply under the terms of the Amendment.

The Land Commission should not be subjected to the bureaucratic procedure proposed in the Amendment. It has never been suggested for any other organisation—the New Towns Corporation, for instance. Its relations with the Treasury are on a daily basis as was the case with similar other bodies. To submit the Land Commission to the procedure contained in the Amendment would be bureaucratic in the extreme and would fail to achieve what the hon. Gentleman has in mind—improved management—putting aside for the moment the doctrinal overtones of his speech.

The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) asked a number of questions, some of which do not arise out of the Amendment. This is a float to the Commission. We expect that the Commission's operations over a period will be at least self-balancing and in due course that it will make substantial sums in hand. We estimate that the levy in a full year will have a return of about £80 million. For the reasons given during discussion on the Financial Resolution, I cannot give him a more precise figure. I hope the House will agree that the Amendment would have a bureaucratic and inhibiting effect and will reject it.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 116.

Division No. 184.]
AYES
[10.38 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Eadie, Alex
Kelley, Richard


Albu, Austen
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kenyon, Clifford


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Alldritt, Walter
Ellis, John
Lawson, George


Allen, Scholefield
English, Michael
Leadbitter Ted


Anderson, Donald
Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ensor, David
Lipton, Marcus


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Faulds, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Femyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John


Beaney, Alan
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
MacColl, James


Bence, Cyril
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Macdonald, A. H.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Binns, John
Floud, Barnard
Mackintosh, John P.


Blackburn, F.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Boardman, H.
Ford, Ben
MacPherson, Malcolm


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
Manuel, Archie


Boyden, James
Fowler, Gerry
Mapp, Charles


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David


Bradley, Tom
Gardner, Tony
Maxwell, Robert


Brooks, Edwin
Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, J, J.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Garrow, Alex
Millan, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gregory, Arnold
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Cant, R. B.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moyle, Roland


Coe, Denis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Neal, Harold


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Newens, Stan


Concannon, J. D.
Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Rt, H n. Philip (Derby, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Harper, Joseph
Qakes, Gordon


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Crawshaw, Richard
Haseldine, Norman
O'Malley, Brian


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hazell, Bert
Orbach, Maurice


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Henig, Stanley
Oswald, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Horner, John
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Howie, W.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Delargy, Hugh
Hoy, James
Pentland, Norman


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Perry, George, H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dickens, James
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Dobson, Ray
Hynd, John
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rankin, John


Dunn James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunwoody Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)






Robertson, John (Paisley)
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'slow, E.)
Snow, Julian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rose, Paul
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Swingler, Stephen
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Sheldon, Robert
Varley, Eric G.
Zilliacus, K.


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)



Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Watkins, David (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silkin, Rt. Hn, John (Deptford)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Mr. Edward Bishop and


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Neil McBride


Skeffington, Arthur
Whitaker, Ben





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pardoe, John


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pink, R. Bonner


Batsford, Brian
Hastings, Stephen
Pounder, Rafton


Birch, Rt. un. Nigel
Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyd-Carpenter Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hooson, Emlyn
Roots, William


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. SirWalter
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, Gordon
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smith, John


Carlisle, Mark
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Summers, Sir Spencer


Clark, Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Talbot, John E.


Clegg, Walter
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Crouch, David
Loveys, W. H.
Tilney, John


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, w.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp; Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Marten, Neil
Webster, David


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R, J.
Whitelaw, William


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


Foster, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)



Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Anthony Grant.

10.45 p.m.

Clause 6.—(GENERAL POWERS OF ACQUISITION.)

Mr. Walter Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 5, line 4, at the beginning to insert:
(1) The power to acquire land shall not be exercisable by the Commission unless—

(a) the Commission is satisfied that the land to be acquired is the right land for the implementation of national, regional or local development plans and will not be available at the right time for such implementation; or
(b) the Commission is directed by regulations made by the appropriate Minister or Minister by virtue of subsection (3) of section 1 of this Act to exercise that power in a specified instance.

Since I consider that this is a paving or linking Amendment to Amendment No. 5, in page 5, leave out line 9 and insert:
'in respect of which there is planning permission for the carrying out of a material development implementing (in the opinion of the Commission) current national, regional or local development plans'.
I would like to take the two together, with the permission of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is that to the convenience of the House?

Mr. Willey: Mr. Willey indicated assent.

Mr. Clegg: The avowed object of this Amendment is to limit the wide powers which are given to the Commission under Clause 6. We do this in two ways, but the underlying motives behind the Amendment are to bring the Clause into line with the White Paper and the Government's intentions at that time. The objectives of the Government's land policy, as set out on page 4 of the White Paper, are twofold. We are only concerned with the first, which is:
to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans.
These words are echoed in this Amendment. We have gone somewhat further than that and given the Minister power, by Regulation to be approved by the House, power to extend the powers of the Commission to acquire land. The second Amendment is on similar terms. It seeks to limit the power of the Commission by limiting it to land where planning permission has been obtained, subject to the words that I have mentioned.
When we debated somewhat similar attempts by this side to limit the powers of the Commission, I was told on frequent occasions by the Minister, and particularly by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who, I regret, is not now present, that I was doing that only because I was suspicious. My suspicions are still there. If the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire were present, I would say that they were not merely the suspicions of a lawyer but were also the suspicions of someone who owns a little land and the suspicions of a politician.
When the arguments were put against our limiting the powers of the Commission, it was quite frequently said that the Commission would be a responsible body. The implication was that a responsible public body would always see that justice was done. I took leave then, and I still do, to reject that argument, because I am by no means convinced that the Commission would always do the right thing. It will be a very powerful body; it is to have extremely wide powers. I believe that once it gets the bit between its teeth, it could make decisions which could be repugnant to many private citizens. Therefore, we believe that its power should be limited, in this case to the objectives which the Government have set themselves.
I am not by any means the only person who feels suspicious of public bodies, even public bodies which are democratically elected, which, of course, the Land Commission is not. It is an appointed body. Before I came in to the debate today, I looked at the "tape" and under the heading of "Get-rich-quick rewards" I saw this report from the Rating and Valuation Association conference at Eastbourne:
Mr. G. A. Neill, a chartered surveyor, today described as an unhappy feature the tendency on the part of some local authorities to take too short a view of development and to regard themselves as a sort of glorified board of directors instead of the duly elected representatives that they are, and to regard the electorate as shareholders to get-rich-quick rewards. This attitude, he thought, was fundamentally wrong as it ignores long-term considerations and takes into account only short-term material benefits.
If that is being said about a democratically elected body as a glorified board of directors, it could be said with even more power about the Land Commission,


which, in effect, is a board of directors governing a company which has £45 million, and possibly £75 million, to invest in the purchase of land.
We feel, therefore, that these Amendments are reasonable. They do not seek to prevent the Government from attaining the objectives which they set themselves in the White Paper. All we seek to do is to limit the Commission from going beyond its powers.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I rise briefly to support the Amendment moved in such persuasive terms by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). Although time goes on, the House will appreciate that this is a vitally important Clause in the Bill, giving these very wide and unprecedented powers of compulsory acquisition to this new creature of statute, the Land Commission.
Although certain limitations are put upon the power of compulsory acquisition between the first and the second appointed days—and there are those who feel that the second appointed day may never arise; that is something which we shall see in the future—these limitations, however, which are prescribed in subsection (4), come to an end once there is a second appointed day, if second appointed day there be, and the powers of acquisition are then as defined in subsection (3).
Those powers are, I think one must say, dangerously wide and undefined in the relation to what they will enable the Land Commission to do. I am putting it shortly. My own feeling in regard to the powers of acquisition given by this Clause 6 is that, in so far as the powers are directed to a useful and appropriate end, they are almost entirely powers already exercised or exercisable in law by local planning authorities. They are, that is to say, duplicate powers given to a body which will not have any elective status or responsibility, when such powers are already exercisable by authorities which are directly responsible to democratic election. In so far, on the other hand, as they are new powers which are not duplicate powers already existing, they go so wide as virtually to give carte blanche to the Land Commission.
In support of the first of those propositions, the powers given in Clause 6(3,c),
the land is designated by the current development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition

that is, of course, a clear duplicate of the powers already exercisable by the local planning authority under Section 67 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962.
In support of the second proposition, that in so far as the powers are not duplicate powers they are dangerously wide and imprecise, I would refer the House to the immediately preceding paragraph (b) of that subsection (3), which gives power of compulsory acquisition of land allocated
for purposes of any such description, as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection".
There is no limitation, so far as I know, written into this Bill on the power of the Minister to prescribe, or on the range within which he may prescribe; and that means, therefore, this power of compulsory acquisition will be or may be given to the Land Commission in respect of land appearing in the allocation—or zoning, to use the popular idiom—in a development plan. All land, other than land which, again in the jargon of these matters, is called white land, will be susceptible to compulsory acquisition by the Land Commission under Clause 6(3,b).
When one looks at that in the context of the rest of the Bill, when one sees that these compulsory acquisitions may be carried out under the special procedures of Clause 8, that is to say, without the right of a public local inquiry or even the opportunity to be heard when objection can be raised, when one considers the extension of the powers of accelerating vesting under Clauses 9 and 10, the House will appreciate the enormous step—not step forward, I think step backward is the more appropriate constitutional description—taken by this Clause in giving these very extensive powers of compulsory acquisition to a non-elected body armed with these special rights and procedures.
That being so, it is obviously desirable that some constitutional limits and safeguards should be attached to these rights. Those which are enshrined in the Amendment are very modest and moderate. There might be a case for a substantially tighter restriction on the powers than that put forward in my hon. Friend's Amendment, but, as he said, he erred on the side of caution and based


his Amendment on the original proposals of the Government in the White Paper. Therefore, one would hope that the Minister would see his way to accept this restriction, not a dramatic or drastic one but a modest one, upon the very extensive powers which the Bill will otherwise confer.

11.0 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: I do not suppose that the Minister will accept the Amendment, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has done the House a service by moving it.
If one takes Clauses 8, 9 and 10 into account, it seems that the Land Commission is being given far too wide a power and an unnecessarily wide one. The idea that because a group of people are called together, however carefully selected, by a Minister they are beyond sin is one of the biggest fallacies of modern government. Once people become members of any commission and occupy a position of power—it has been said that power corrupts—they have a vested interest in doing to excess what the legislation allows them to do. This is ordinary human reaction. To say that because it is a public body and is statutorily appointed it will always act with moderation is not proved by historical precedent. Once people are in that position, they will gradually over the years—they may be all right for the first year—collect the barnacles around their corporate existence which are the result of the powers that exist in that corporate existence. If these people are given the wide powers in the Bill, particularly with the limitations in Clauses 8, 9 and 10, inevitably they will quickly begin to use them to the limit allowed by the Bill.
The Commission is not an elected body; it is a statutory body with all the evils that grow up with such a body. In debates over the years we have had criticisms of the powers of statutory bodies. Their collective wisdom can often be equalled by their collective evil. There is no certainty that because they are appointed by a Minister they will be angels from heaven. There may be a collective mistake in their appointment. They may all be—I am sure that the Minister would not do this—Left-wing ideological Socialists. Equally, they might be of a totally different political

complexion. But the idea that because they are statutorily appointed they do not suffer from the ordinary evils from which humans beings suffer is a fallacy that the House should get rid of.
Up to now most of the powers that were necessary for the compulsory purchase of land existed in the hands of local authorities. I doubt whether they need any more powers. If they do not need any more powers, the Commission does not need any more powers than already exist in the hands of the local authorities. But there is one great difference, and it is that the local authorities are elected by a democratic process. If we decide that the Lancashire County Council is handling the affairs of land purchase in a bad way, every three years the electors of Lancashire have the right to make a change. Under this statutory Commission, appointed by the Minister, the electors have no control over it. That sort of statutory body, if anything, ought to have smaller powers than a body like the Lancashire County Council, which is elected by a demorcratic process.
I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to consider whether, before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, he would not look sympathetically at the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde and supported ably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), or at some similar wording. There is a great danger in giving greater powers to a statutory body than already exist to an elected body which, when it comes down to it, is fundamentally the lack of wisdom on the part of the Minister who will have the responsibility of appointing that body. If he makes a nonsense of the appointment, think of the power which he has given to that body.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about this Amendment.

Mr. Willey: I have great difficulty in responding to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), in view of what he has just said. If he looks at the proposed Amendment, he will read:
The power to acquire land shall not be exercisable by the Commission unless—

(a) the Commission is satisfied that the land to be acquired is the right land for the implementation of national, regional or local development plans and will not be available at the right time for such implementation; or


(b) the Commission is directed by regulations made by the appropriate Minister or Minister by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 1 of this Act to exercise that power in a specified instance."

That rather makes nonsense of a discussion which we had a short time ago. It envisages a very bureaucratic way of working for the Commission.
The first few lines of the provisions have regard to acquisitions by the Land Commission, and would say at the start that we envisage the Land Commission exercising the power to acquire because it is so directed by regulations coming from this House in a specified instance.
That is one of the reasons why I could not accept these Amendments. The major reason, however, is this. I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, and I am sure that he would agree with me that, at any rate, we have the presentation right in the Bill. The first subsection is dealing not only with purchase by compulsory powers but also with purchase by agreement. No hon. Member opposite has directed his attention to that at all. We deal with the powers to acquire both by agreement and by compulsory purchase, and then we go on to define the conditions under which the powers of compulsory purchase can be exercised.
It is under subsection (3) that we provide that compulsory purchase will only be within the framework of planning decisions. The right hon. Gentleman made criticisms of these powers going very wide, but he has not put forward any amendments to these provisions.
If we rely instead upon the present Amendment, we face not only the difficulties to which I have called attention. I thought that it was generally accepted that the Land Commission should acquire land well in advance of development. That would be one of the purposes of the Land Commission in getting land well in advance and managing it meanwhile. It could not do that under the present provisions. It would be quite impossible for the Land Commission to buy land in advance and be satisfied before buying it that otherwise it would not be available at the right time. We know the source from which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends got their inspiration to put down this Amendment, but if we accept that source we

have to put it in proper Parliamentary form. That is what we have done in the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has misread the Amendment and has not grasped its purpose. The Commission is set up for some purpose. I gather that it is not set up for the purpose of seizing people's land indiscriminately. It is set up, as is said in the White Paper,
to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans.
That is set out clearly in Cmnd. 2771, on which this Bill was based.
If that is the purpose of the Commission, it should first have regard to that purpose, and that is what we have set out in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 4, that the Commission should pay attention to the purposes for which the Government have put it into existence. As I understand it, there is nothing improper now about putting White Papers and phrases from White Papers into Acts. Apparently it is proper, after the Prices and Incomes Act, to write the whole of a White Paper into a Statute. We have been modest here and have merely taken a few words out of the White Paper to show the purpose of the Commission.
If the Commission wishes to go outside that purpose, paragraph (b) comes into operation, that is to say, the Commission must come to the Minister and say, "We want to acquire some land, not because it is the right land to be made available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans, but for some other purpose". If the Commission wants to do that, it should come to the Minister, and he should bring the matter before Parliament by means of regulations to allow the Commission to go outside the scope of the purpose for which it was set up.
As has been said in this debate, when we have given compulsory powers in the past, we have given them to elected bodies. In certain cases we have given them to statutory bodies as well, but in every case, as far as I know, we have expressed the purpose for which the compulsory powers were to be used. We have never given any statutory body, or an elected body, a blank cheque to purchase property compulsorily without a purpose.


This is what we want to put into the Clause, which, as it stands, gives the Commission wide powers.
As I read the Clause, the Commission will have very few limitations. It is true that there are these subsections about first appointed day, and second appointed day, and so on, but on reading the paragraphs under the lettering I should have thought that the draftsman had covered every possibility, and that the Commission could bring itself within any of those subparagraphs without any difficulty at all, whatever land it wished to acquire. Thus the limits are negligible, and really the rest of the Clause does not mean anything.
If the Commission is acquiring land, it is surely acquiring it for the purpose of development, whether it is immediate development, or whether it is acquiring it in advance of the time at which it desires to develop. If that is the case, before the Commission acquires land it should see that there is planning permission for the development which it wishes to carry out. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 5. The Commission should not go fishing around for plots of land, and then some time in the future decide that it will develop this or that on the land. Before it acquires land it should see that there is planning permission, and that that planning permission allows the development for which the land is to be purchased. There is no difficulty about this for the Commission, and it is a protection to the victim of the compulsory purchase—the previous owner of the land.
11.15 p.m.
The Commission, without owning the land, can make its application for planning permission without being obliged to do that. If the Clause remains as drafted the Commission can acquire land and then decide later for what purpose it will develop it. This is not the purpose for which it was set up. It is not the purpose set out in the White Paper or the purpose which was understood in the debates on the White Paper, or even in the debate on the Second Reading. The Commission was to bring forward the right land at the right time for the implementation of national, regional or local plans. That is the point to which it should pay attention. It cannot pay

attention to that unless it knows what permission it has for the development of land. Therefore, before it acquires any land it should see that there is planning permission in respect of that land. This will at least be some protection to the owners of land, and it will be some protection to Parliament to know what the Commission is doing and what activities it is undertaking.
I do not know why the Minister wants to give the Commission these unlimited powers. Is it so that by specific directions under Clause 1 it can be used as the vehicle of Ministerial directions? I would not accuse the present Minister of that, but we do not know what other Minister might take his place in due course. Under the Bill no purpose is set down for which the Commission can acquire land. Under Clause 1 a Minister can order it to acquire land for any purpose he chooses by a specific direction. There is no protection to the public. There never has been a Bill like this before—not even in wartime—which allows the Government to take property from the subject in the way that this Bill does.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: In page 5, leave out line 9 and insert:
'in respect of which there is planning permission for the carrying out of a material development implementing (in the opinion of the Commission) current national, regional or local development plans'.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7.—(COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS: NORMAL PROCEDURE.)

Amendment made: In page 6, fine 42, leave out from 'as' to end of line 6 on page 7 and insert:
'it applies to a compulsory acquisition by a Minister in a case falling within section 1(1) of that Act:
Provided that, in relation to any compulsory acquisition by the Commission,—

(a) in section 1 of that Act any reference to Schedule 1 to that Act, and
(b) in Part IV of that Schedule any reference to that Act or that Schedule,

shall be construed as a reference to that Act or Schedule (as the case may be) as modified by or under this Part of this Act'.—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, to leave out lines 38 and 39 and to insert:
'(4) By statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, the Minister whose authority is required in relation to a compulsory purchase order may order that so far as that compulsory purchase is concerned'.

The Clause sets out what is called the normal procedure for compulsory purchase orders. It is normal in that it is not so extraordinary and special as the procedures set out in Clause 8, but otherwise I would not call it normal by any means. One abnormality is that under subsection (4) the Commission can make a compulsory purchase order without specifying the purpose for which it desires to acquire the land. Here again, I can recollect no occasion on which the House has given power to an elected or an appointed body to take the subject's land without stating the purpose for which it requires it. Normally, any body which has compulsory powers can use them only for the purposes stated in the Statute which gave it those powers.

In this case, as we saw in our earlier discussion, the Commission has power to acquire land with no particular purpose in mind. I suppose that it follows, in the mind of the draftsman of the Bill, that the Commission should not be obliged to state in the notice relating to the compulsory purchase order the purpose for which it wants the land. There may be some need for secrecy. If on any particular occasion there is, the Minister should come to Parliament and say clearly, "In the public interest, neither the Commission nor I can state the purpose for which it wants this land." This should be frankly stated to the House, if so, and that is what the Amendment is intended to achieve.

If it is desired that the Commission should not state the purpose for which it wants a piece of land, the Minister should seek an Order of Parliament to that effect, otherwise the normal rules about compulsory purchase should apply—that the acquiring authority should state the purpose for which it wants the land.

There is a practical point which should be taken into consideration. Suppose that the Commission is acquiring a part of someone's land and is therefore severing the land by a compulsory purchase

order. The owner of the land will have certain rights of compensation for damage to the land which is left in his possession. How is he to know whether or not it will be damaged unless he knows the purpose for which the Commission intends to use the adjoining land? A more substantive question is, how is the unfortunate victim to know whether he should oppose the compulsory purchase order or not unless he knows the purpose for which the land is to be used?

Normally, if one wishes the Minister to hold an inquiry into a compulsory purchase order and to be heard before a representative appointed by him, one considers whether the purpose for which the order is made is correct for that land. The order may state that the land is needed for an electricity substation and one may argue that the substation would be better situated on a vacant piece of land down the road than in one's back garden. One then has something to argue. But how does the victim of a compulsory purchase order know whether he should ask the Minister to hold a public inquiry or whether he has any case against the order, unless he is told the purpose for which the land is required?

This provision, as it stands, is monstrous. I cannot think of any occasion when this may happen, but we recognise in the Amendment that the Minister may be able to prove to Parliament, in a particular case, that the purpose should not be stated. We say that, in that case, he should come before the House and say so.

As the Clause stands, an owner can have his property taken away from him by a compulsory purchase order without the slightest clue as to the purpose for which it will be used by the Commission and, therefore, without any clue as to whether or not he would have any case for opposing it. This is monstrous.

Mr. John Wells: There can be no doubt that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about an owner who suffers from severance without the purpose of the compulsory purchase acquisition being given to him could be very grave. This particularly applies to owners of horticultural holdings on the fringes of large cities.
The Minister and Parliamentary Secretary have been made well aware in Committee of my interests in horticulture. They agree with me that there is this continuing pattern of farm, horticulture, suburbs and then city centre. This has been the traditional layout of our towns; from the outwards in. The sort of areas which the Commission is likely to deal with are those very areas in which horticultural growers tend to have their livelihood.
I see no reason for this possible secrecy. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, I cannot see why an electricity substation or anything else should not be stated. I do not see why a civilian body should be given these extraordinary powers; except that under the present Government we are slowly slipping into a totalitarian system where the Government do things without stating any reason to the private citizen. For this reason every private citizen will wholeheartedly reject the thinking behind the Bill. I trust that the Minister will give us an assurance on this point.
The previous Amendment, which we whistled through in a few seconds—because the Minister merely said that it was a "drafting Amendment"—is yet another indication of the slipshod methods of the Minister and his Department. I trust that he will accept my hon. Friend's proposal or at least have the grace to have a suitable Amendment made in another place.

Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps I can assist the House. With respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it seems that the Amendment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "purpose".
There are two appointed days in the Bill. After the first appointed day, and before the second, the purposes for which land can be acquired by the Commission are set out in Clause 6(4). There are four categories, (a), (b), (c) and (d), set out. There may come, after the proper procedure has been gone through, the second appointed day, after which the Commission can acquire land in much wider categories.
The provision as now drafted provides that when the second appointed day has arrived, and the purposes of the Commission are much wider, the limiting provision

in the Clause disappears. It is in that sense the the word "purpose" is used. It is when the second appointed day has arrived that there must be provision for that part of the Clause to drop out.
11.30 p.m.
What I think hon. and right hon. Members opposite are thinking is that here "purpose" means land use, and that therefore only land owners' rights will be prejudiced because they will not know the land use. But it has been said again and again, and perhaps I might now repeat it—that the Commission, even in those circumstances, after the second appointed day will only work when there is a planning permission, either by the local authority or by the Minister. That is provided for in Clause (3). Therefore, if there is any question of severance or injurious affection it will be part of the procedure, with all that that entails.
I really think that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has confused purpose with use, but he will now see that it is quite obvious that one must provide for the limitations of Clause 6(4) and then afterwards rely on the general planning provisions.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has just said something that is very important, but I cannot follow it in the Bill as it stands. He said that after the second appointed day the Commission will only acquire land when there is planning permission. That does not follow from the paragraphs in subsection (3). It is true that there may be general development orders over the land, but not planning permission. Then he says that we have misunderstood "purpose". Perhaps I may ask him quite specifically: will the Land Commission in a compulsory purchase order have to state the purpose for which the land is to be used, or the planning permission which it has over the land?

Mr. Skeffington: The Commission will be acting within the planning apparatus and, as a result, the normal rights of the individual will be safeguarded in that way.

Mr. Allason: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be a little more helpful here. Is he referring to subsection (3) of Clause 6 or of Clause 7? It does not seem to follow from Clause 7, but from Clause 6


where, in subsection (3,a) there is the question of planning permission. Paragraph (d) says solely
… the land forms part of an area designated as the site of a new town …
It follows that if anyone owns any land within the designated area of a new town that land can be taken from him by compulsory purchase, and the sole reason given in the compulsory purchase notice served on the owner, on which the owner may wish to object, is that the land is part of an area designated for a new town, and the Commission is then entitled to get the land.
The land concerned may be a quiet residential area where the intention is to introduce some rather unpleasant factory, or something like that. In those circumstances, the owner will have no right to object on the grounds that the land is being taken from him for an objectionable purpose, because the only purpose he will be shown is that the land is part of the designated area of a new town. In that case, there is no planning permission whatever, so I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary can say that in all cases there must be planning permission before there can be compulsory purchase.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 41, leave out from 'a' to 'order' in line 42 and insert:
notice relating to a compulsory purchase'.—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Farr: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 8, line 21, at the end to insert:
(6) A compulsory purchase order which is made under the provisions of this section as it affects the winning and working of minerals, shall have effect only in relation to the minerals to be extracted, whilst the title to the land containing such minerals shall remains with the original owner.
It is with a great deal of optimism that I move this Amendment. We have had a series of negative replies from the Government, but I feel that a sensible Amendment of this type can do nothing but appeal to the Minister. As he will recall, in Committee we raised what we considered a sound Amendment asking that the procedure prescribed under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1966, should first be exhausted before the Land Commission came into

the field to acquire minerals. We understood from the reply which the Minister was good enough to explain with great courtesy and at some length, that that Act was unsatisfactory for two reasons.
First, it was a consolidating Act and, secondly and more important, it did not embrace sand and gravels among the minerals it referred to. In his remarks in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
In the meantime, assurances have been sought that if necessary, to expedite the provision particularly of sand and gravel, in suitable circumstances the Land Commission could purchase the land.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 30th June, 1966; c. 243.]
It is not the desire of hon. Members on this side of the House to hamstring the acquisition of minerals of any sort where they are urgently needed in the national interest. Incidentally, I am not aware of an example where minerals have not been readily made available when needed. The Minister apparently requires the Land Commission to have these additional powers, as explained in Committee, to expendite the provision of all minerals. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide just that without the Minister burdening himself with the ownership of the land within which the minerals lie.
Some hon. Members on both sides of the House might think this a matter of little importance. Often when minerals have been extracted and the workings are exhausted little is left but a hole in the ground. It is no asset but could be a burden to someone. That applies to some minerals, but I have particularly in mind iron ore deposits which lie very near the surface in many parts of the country and especially in Northamptonshire. Thousands of acres have been worked there and from the royalties which the owners receive there is a deduction, in some cases amounting to 50 per cent., towards a restoration fund. The restoration scheme has worked well. Great care has been taken by the operators, the subsoil has been returned, then the topsoil and land drains, and in a very few years the land has been restored to those who wish to farm it, in good heart and condition. It can then in no way be compared to merely a large hole or pit.
If the Minister desires these powers of acquisition to assist the provision of minerals, he could have all that he wants by applying the provision specifically to


the minerals needed and without the quite unnecessary acquisition by the State through the Commission of large areas of good farmland from which it is in the national interest that maximum product should be achieved with the minimum of disruption.

Mr. Willey: I appreciate the interest and concern of the hon. Member for Har-borough (Mr. Farr) in this, but he will recognise that we have had close consultation with the minerals industry and have reached agreement about the steps which we should take under the Bill.
The difficulty about the Amendment is that it is not limited to cases in which there is a severance of ownership between the minerals and the rest of the land. The Amendment would hamstring the Commission and in some cases would prejudice the land owner. It would hamstring the Commission because it might be in the public interest that minerals should be worked which could not be worked without some interference with the land. Similarly the landowner might prefer to sell the land and not to dispose only of the minerals. For these reasons, I do not think that we can tackle the problem in the way which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Allason: I am astonished that the Minister suggests that he is trying to protect the land owner. We are discussing compulsory purchase. At the beginning of Clause 6 there is the operation of the voluntary system. If the land owner wants to sell this land, there is nothing in the Amendment which would prevent him from selling it to the Land Commission. The Minister's excuse is utter nonsense. And that leaves very little in the Minister's case.
He spoke of close consultation with the minerals industry, with the implication that they are entirely satisfied with the situation, but I do not think that that is the case with all the interests concerned with the industry. I ask the Minister to look at this proposal again and, if he cannot accept it at this stage, to see whether he should not put down an Amendment on similar lines in another place.

Mr. Willey: The fact that it is compulsory purchase does not affect the point

which I made—that the owner may wish to dispose of his complete interest in the land.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 8.—(COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS: SPECIAL PROCEDURE.)

Mr. Allason: I beg to move, Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 24, to leave out from 'is' to the end of line 3 on page 9 and to insert
urgently necessary to enable the Commission compulsorily to acquire a specified area of land which is required for a material development (which is in the public interest) and is being unreasonably withheld from such development, the appropriate Minister or Ministers as the confirming authority may by an order made before the end of that period give an authorisation for a compulsory purchase order in relation to the said land subject to the provisions of Schedule 3 of the Acquisition of Land Act".

Clause 8 introduces the simplified procedure for compulsory purchase orders. The Minister introduces a general order which authorises acquisitions generally or in a specific case—and this could depend on the locality, the type of development and the use. In the White Paper, Cmnd. 2771, this simplified procedure was introduced in a rather different way. Paragraph 20 reads:
The Bill will also enable the Ministers by Order to invoke temporarily and, if necessary, for certain parts of the country only, a more rapid compulsory purchase procedure in which there will be some modification of the requirements relating to the service of notice and the holding of inquiries into objections.

11.45 p.m.

That is a rather substantial understatement having regard to the modified procedure in Schedule 2. Under Schedule 2 the Minister is not required to hold an inquiry at all, or even to order a private hearing to hear objections. Indeed, the Minister is not even required to consider objections whatever. All he needs to do is to issue his order confirming the compulsory purchase order. In consequence of this, the owner of the land has no opportunity whatever to object to his land being taken from him. He knows that he will be wasting his time in putting in representations because they will not be considered. His land is confiscated without any redress at all.

This is the situation which can arise under the operation of this Clause and Schedule 2. I find that many people


simply refuse to credit that this could be so. Yet this is precisely what is being enacted, unless our Amendment is accepted. The effect of the Amendment is to restrict the simplified procedure to
a specified area of land which is required for a material development (which is in the public interest) and is being unreasonably withheld from such development.

In those circumstances, the Minister may authorise a simplified compulsory purchase order procedure, which is already in existence in the Third Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. That was a temporary Measure, introduced immediately after the war for very urgent compulsory purchase of land in order to get things moving quickly.

We all agree that it is necessary to have something moving fairly quickly. But under the procedure in the Third Schedule to the 1946 Act no dwelling house shall be involved. This is of great importance. Yet under the procedure laid down in Clause 8 a dwelling house may be included, and someone may well find that when his land is taken from him it will include his dwelling house. He will have no right of objection, and at the end of a short period he may be evicted from his house. This is a most intolerable arrangement. By adopting the procedure contained in Schedule 3 to the 1946 Act we shall exclude dwelling houses but in respect of other land there is required the publication of a proposal to take the land and the service of notices on the owner and occupier. Thereafter, although there is no procedure for holding an inquiry or a private hearing, the Minister is required to consider representations. He would act in a judicial capacity and take account of the objections of the person whose land was to be taken.

This is not an attractive procedure to any of us who feel that it is necessary that the owner of land should be allowed to object before his land is taken from him. It is better that objections should be heard at a public inquiry. However, we agree that a public inquiry takes a long time and accept that there are certain special cases where it is necessary to have a simplified procedure. We believe that the procedure under the Acquisition of Land Act is perhaps acceptable.

The arguments in favour of Clause 8 have always been that it is needed for cases where land is unreasonably withheld. Our Amendment would ensure that this procedure would only take place where land was being unreasonably withheld. It would be improper to use the powers in this Clause in normal cases, in which someone had a valid objection and did not want to be hurried, but it would be allowable in cases of unreasonable withholding. The Amendment therefore meets the requirement for some form of objection to be allowed while at the same time it provides an expedited procedure.

The great merits of the Amendment are that no dwelling house would be involved, that the Minister would have to consider objections and that the disgraceful procedure under Schedule 2 would be avoided.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In terms of deliberate and calculated injustice, Clause 8 is the worst in the Bill and I am personally sorry that Mr. Speaker did not, in his wisdom, select the immediately preceding Amendment on the Order Paper which proposed straightforwardly to delete it. But the Amendment moved so well by my hon. Friend is aimed to, and would, remedy at least the greater part of the mischief that the Clause will do, and I wholeheartedly support it.
The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite have very much underrated the hardship to individuals involved in compulsory purchase. Whether the objective of compulsory purchase is someone's home or the premises in which he earns his living, it is a matter of the severest hardship to have his property compulsorily taken from them even if, as very often is not the case, the compensation is adequate.
It is an appalling piece of injustice in time of peace to take away someone's home or the place where he earns his living without even giving that person the opportunity to be heard in his own defence. It can matter to someone about as much as anything can in life whether he is to retain the home in which he lives and probably has brought up his family, in a neighbourhood he likes and among relatives and friends and near where he works. Indeed, it is far more important to many people than many of the things which bring people before


the criminal courts. Yet it would be regarded as a most appalling affront to our concept of justice to deny anybody brought before a criminal court the right to be heard in his own defence. What Clause 8 does is to take away from those individuals affected the right to be heard in defence of their homes, or the places where they earn their livelihoods, and that seems to be an absolutely monstrous provision in time of peace and without, so far at any rate, at this late stage, any proper cause shown.
The other appalling side to it is the denial of provision for proper notice. The words which the Amendment proposes to leave out include the words which bring in Schedule 2. Although it has been mentioned before, the House ought to be reminded of the notice provision contained in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2. Apart from the provision for notice by registered post, there is the astonishing provision that the notice of the intention of the Land Commission compulsorily to purchase someone's property can be either delivered to some person on the land, some person with no relationship necessarily with the owner of the land, or, if there is no person present on the land to whom it can be delivered, affixed to some conspicuous object on the land.
I can tell the House that when, during the general election campaign, at public meetings I mentioned this, I found that public audiences simply did not believe it. They did not believe that this Government could be capable of such an affront to one's ordinary concept of decency and justice. I had to adopt the practice of taking Schedule 2 of the Bill in my pocket—I could not take the whole Bill, because even at that stage, before it had swollen to its present weight, it was excessively bulky—to- read it, because ordinary audiences simply would not believe that this was what the present Government were proposing to do.
I do not want to labour this point, because it has been made before, but, as the House knows, the net effect is that it is possible for the notice to miscarry, particularly when people happen to be away on holiday. This will not be the case with the great landowners, who have effective estate agents or solicitors to represent them, but it could awfully easily

happen to the little man, to the small man who goes away on holiday and has some notice affixed to a conspicuous object on his land, a notice which next day is blown away in a gale before it can be received, or handed to some passer by with no interest in the proceedings.
Even if notice is given, there should certainly be an opportunity to be heard and I hope that even at this late hour those whose duty it is to acquaint the public outside with what the House and the Government are doing will see that it is made clear to people, particularly owner-occupiers, that by this proposal by the Government someone's home might be taken away from him without his knowing that it is to happen and, even if he does know, without his having an opportunity to be heard in his own defence.
What is the justification for this? When the nation is at war and when for purposes of national defence private interests have to be subordinate to the defence of the realm, most people are prepared to accept very acute injustice, and in those years and under the Labour Government after the war some procedure of this kind was enacted, though it was properly dropped a very few years after the war. But in time of peace what need is there to arm the Land Commission with this power? What is the fantastic urgency which can justify the taking away of the right to be heard and the right to be informed of an individual who desires to defend his home?
If the Land Commission does its job properly, it will plan ahead. It will know, in due time, what land it requires for its purposes or otherwise, and it can therefore, if it is to acquire the land, compulsorily or otherwise, or thinks that it has to, perfectly well give time for proper inquiry.
12 m.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, given the plain injustice of the procedure to the individual, what are the overwhelming considerations of public interest and security which involve a justification for the withdrawal of the normal safeguards of the rights of the individual?
One knows that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are a little impatient of the individual's rights. We have spent the last 36 hours in seeing


the accrued rights of trade unions taken away, without compensation, by Governmental action. We know that a Government that will do this to trade unions will have even less concern for landowners, great or small. This is a monstrous proposal and one for which I have never yet heard, inside or outside of this House, an effective justification. In my view it is a shameful provision and we should strike it from the Bill.

Mr. Willey: We have had a full discussion in Committee on Clause 8 and Schedule 2. The position one has to face is that there is a possibility, one hopes that it is a remote one, of housing being prejudiced if there were a reaction against the Measures which Parliament is approving. This is why the Clause is drafted in this flexible form. These powers will not be resorted to, but any sensible Government would have to have reserve powers.

This Amendment concedes this. It is providing an alternative. What one would be concerned about here is time; one cannot afford to lose time. It is not true that representations would not be considered. They would. The Minister would be under an obligation to do so. The right hon. Gentleman said that the inquiry would be at the discretion of the Minister, and this is so, but it is the inquiry which takes the time.

The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have put up a proposition designed for the same purpose. They are saying that it has safeguards. This is the difficulty. We are concerned about expedition and we have to save time. My difficulty, and this is why I find the present proposals unacceptable, is that I cannot see that there would be any saving of time here. One would have a doubling of time, because the Minister, under this approach, would have to satisfy himself that this is necessary, so that he would probably have to go through a similar procedure as in a compulsory purchase. I cannot see that we would save time. There is another technical difficulty in this Amendment in that we are calling in Schedule 3 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946 which is being repealed.

Mr. Rippon: I find that reply wholly unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, as my right

hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said, that we would really desire that this Clause should be removed altogether, and any alternative proposals put forward are simply to attempt to mitigate the mischief which we perceive in this provision. I cannot understand how the Minister can come here and say that there is only a remote possibility that these powers might be necessary, but still any prudent Government ought to have them as reserve powers, because there may come a time when, in this remote case, we may want to save time.
Having listened to the powerful arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, I cannot understand how any responsible Minister could simply dismiss those arguments with the few casual phrases that the Minister has used.
The House of Commons has to face that we are being asked to allow a Government—it could be any Government or any Minister responsible—to take a man's home or his property without notice and without a hearing. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that the public just do not believe us when we say what Clause 8 contains. They do not believe that any democratic Government in peacetime would take a power of this sort. I have no doubt that they misunderstood the whole purpose of the Bill, which, they think, is designed to make land cheaper and more readily available and to end the speculation on a grand scale.
This affects the rights of every freeholder. The Minister should take much more seriously the arguments which we have advanced, because one thing that I can assure him is that we shall oppose this provision, inside and outside this House, now and hereafter.

Mr. Farr: As the night goes on, the Minister's replies seem to become more short, more abrupt and less relevant to the arguments deployed from this side of the House. In the few remarks which he has just made, he said no less than four times that the purpose of this manoeuvre was to save time. He stressed that the Commission would endeavour to expedite proceedings by this telescoped procedure.
How can the Land Commission possibly be concerned with saving time when it needs up to six years to decide whether a notice of assessment of levy is to be issued later in the Bill? Time is of no concern to the Commission. It has years to waste. To give a frivolous reply like the Minister has just given is treating the House with the utmost contempt.

Mr. Allason: I would like to take up with the Minister some of the words he has used. He said that the provision of land might well be prejudiced if there was a reaction against the measures in the Bill and land did not come forward. If he looks at the wording of the Amendment, he will see that it is designed to cover the case where land which is required for material development, which is in the public interest, is being unreasonably withheld from such development. Surely, that is precisely the point the Minister was getting at. If there is unreasonable withholding, it is necessary to use the simplified procedure. But in what other circumstances should that procedure be used? The right hon. Gentleman is taking power to use it at all times.
The Minister then said that this was a reserve power which was not intended to be resorted to. Speaking from the Dispatch Box opposite, that is a dangerous remark for him to make. I seem to remember that Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act was not to be resorted to but was merely in the background.
We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister is obliged to consider an objection. In what part of Schedule 2 is that stated? Since the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, I have once again read Schedule 2, which I had already read this evening, and it just is not there. It is clearly in Schedule 3 of the Acquisition of Land Act, which has a definite obligation upon the Minister, but it is not in Schedule 2. As it is not there, perhaps the Minister will at least undertake to put it there in another place, if we have to have Schedule 2 at all.
The great merit of our Amendment is that it omits the possibility of somebody's home being taken under the simplified procedure. Surely this would meet with the approval of both sides of the House, that we should avoid doing this.

This is an objection to Clause 8 as it exists, and which the Minister just has not dealt with at all. I do hope that he will think again about this.

Mr. Willey: I respond to the hon. Gentleman. I have said before, I have no great liking for legislation by reference, but in fact Schedule 2 attracts the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and there is provision for consideration of the objection. So that the provision is there. But I have no complaint to make against the hon. Gentleman, because I have objection to legislation by reference.

Mr. Graham Page: If he looks closely at Schedule 2 the right hon. Gentleman will see that he has excluded some of the paragraphs in the Schedule to the Acquisition of Land Act which put that obligation on him. I am sure that if he looks at it again he will see he has not that obligation.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 9, line 4, to leave out from "under" to the end of line 13 and to insert "this section shall not be made".
The effect of the Amendment would make Clause 8(4) and (5) read:
Any statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Thus we amend subsection (4), omit subsection (5) and slightly adapt the proviso to Clause 8, so as to make an order, which is made by the Minister under the Clause, one which has to be brought before the House and approved before it is made.
So the purpose of the Amendment is twofold: first, an order under Clause 8(1), that is, an order whereby the Minister allows this special procedure to be adopted in any particular case, should be by means of a draft brought before the House; secondly, the Amendment would omit the extension of the Clause for a further five-year period.
On that second point, the extension for five years, frankly I cannot see the purpose of the Clause at all and this abominable procedure under Clause 8, but if it is to last for five years, then let us be shot of it at the end of five


years. The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, had a similar provision, that the special procedure under that Act should last for a period of five years. It was not renewed at the end of the five years. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman took that as a precedent, but why should the Land Commission, if it requires these powers for five years—and we have debated this already on the previous Amendment—require them longer than that? When local authorities and other authorities with compulsory purchase powers have been able to get along without this special procedure, why should we extend it for the Land Commission any time beyond the five years?

12.15 a.m.

Clause 8 can be said to have some precedent in the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, but the draftsman of the Bill has neatly left out all the protection to the public that was given even in 1946. The great difference between the Clause and the 1946 provision is that the 1946 one was made immediately after the war in a state of emergency. That cannot be said about the Clause. Also, the 1946 provision did not apply to dwelling-houses. It gave power only to responsible bodies—local authorities, elected bodies; the Ministry of Transport and the Board of Trade—and did not give the special procedure to an appointed body; and it imposed a specific obligation on the Minister to hear representations.

So in passing the Bill we ought to restrict this to five years and not contemplate extending it further. If it has to be extended, the Minister of that day—and if the Act is still on the Statute Book—had better bring in a new Bill. I have already said that immediately the Conservatives are returned to power we shall repeal this abominable Bill.

I turn to the form in which the Order shall be brought before the House. In order to allow the special procedure in any particular case the Minister must make an Order by Statutory Instrument. As the Bill stands, he has only to lay the Statutory Instrument before Parliament and leave it to an individual Member to pray against it. My Amendment would require him to lay a draft before he made the Order. The difference from a practical point of view between a Statutory Instrument which can be annulled

and one which is brought before the House in draft before it is made is that in the former case we are restricted by Standing Orders to 11.30 p.m. and very often Instruments of that sort have been crowded out of the Order Paper and never debated in the 40 days allowed. An Order of this nature under the Bill might be so crowded out although of vital importance to the citizen. A draft Order needing an affirmative Resolution does not come under Standing Orders and the debate does not have to finish at 11.30 p.m., and so one is certain of having it debated in the House. The House should be informed of and have an opportunity to debate such an Order as this which will allow the Commission to take a man's property by this special procedure without notice or inquiry.

The Amendment has two prongs: to cut out any extension of the five-year period, and to bring any Order under the Clause before the House by means of a draft before the actual Order is made.

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Cooke: I am sorry that the House is groaning at this late hour, but I want to ask the Minister a question. If he can answer it, it may help us in our deliberations. What estimate can he make of the number of times in a year that the procedure in the Clause would be used? If the special procedure is likely to be used a good deal, the House may become clogged up with Orders. If it is likely to be only a rare and special occasion, surely we can accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), because it will be no inconvenience to the House to debate each Order, and there can be no possible objection to my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Willey: On the second point, this is a matter which I said I would consider. I proposed that, and put it before the Committee. I have considered it, but I think that the range is too wide to justify the affirmative Resolution procedure.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has really raised the point on this. One has got—and that is why I shall be moving subsequent Amendments on the affirmative procedure—to


bring them within the accepted categories of regulations for the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Graham Page: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, he said that he has considered it. Has he asked the Council on Tribunals about it? We have not had the assistance of that Council's advice throughout the Committee stage, and I wondered if he had consulted the Council since the Committee stage.

Mr. Willey: I have not consulted the Council.

Mr. Page: Why not?

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Land Commission Bill has been considered by the Council.
On the second point, about the extension of the five years, that again is a matter which the Government have to decide. If there is even a remote possibility, it should be left as it is in the Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that that is a satisfactory answer, and I do not follow what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said that the range is too wide. Does he mean by that that it is intended to resort to this procedure frequently and that there will be too many affirmative Orders? My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) asked the right hon. Gentleman specifically how often he thought the procedure was likely to be invoked. He did not answer the question directly, but, by saying that the range is too wide, he created the impression that the procedure would be resorted to quite a lot. That is in flagrant contradiction to what the right hon. Gentleman told the House on the immediately preceding Amendment. He said then that it was a procedure which was unlikely to be used but that any sensible Government would have it in reserve. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman meant that when he said it. But when, on the next Amendment, he says that the range is too wide to make it subject to the affirmative procedure, he casts a doubt on the sincerity and accuracy of his remarks on the previous Amendment.
Will he explain what he means when he says that the range is too wide, and answer my hon. Friend's question about how many affirmative Orders would be involved?

Mr. Willey: I have already said that it is unlikely that the procedure will be invoked. When I dealt with the range, I did so under subsection (3). When considering whether it is appropriate to adopt the affirmative or the negative procedure, one has to look at the range and character of the matters which would be affected by the regulations.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that he does not regard the invoking of this procedure as a highly important matter?

Hon. Members: Answer !

Mr. Willey: I have answered it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has read the note which has been passed to him from the box, perhaps he can answer the question.

Mr. Rossi: One cannot let the Minister get away with this. It is one of the most terrifying provisions contained in the Bill. It is a pure and utter totalitarian power, and it is no good the Minister saying to the House and to the country that it is a power which he is asking for but does not intend to use.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, that is exactly what the Prime Minister said about Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act. He said, "This is a reserve power. I do not intend to use it". Now we have the Minister saying, "Here is a power which I am asking Parliament to give me whereby I can seize anybody's home at any time without a public inquiry or anything of that kind. I want this power, but I do not intend to use it". Why does not the Minister come to the House and to the country frankly and honestly? This is a Measure for the nationalisation of the land, purely and simply. Why does he not say that? Why does he tell the House that it is very convenient administratively to have this in the Bill, but we do not really want to use it? This is not the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is that the Government want the power, and they intend to use it.
This is a most disgraceful situation. If this is their policy, if this is what they want, if what they want is nationalisation of the land, they should say so honestly. Let them have the courage of their convictions, and not hide behind this smokescreen of gentle words. They do not convince anybody at all.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not want to prolong this discussion unduly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak. He can speak again only with the leave of the House.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I was about to say, "By leave of the House may I ask my little question again?".
The Minister appears to have told the House that this procedure will be used but very seldom. Does he stick to that? Will it be used but very seldom? Can he explain lo me why, if it is to be used but very seldom, the House cannot be sure that it can debate it? We have all experienced the other procedure by which things are crowded out.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is talking about having a chance to debate something. We had a tirade from the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about this. He spoke about having to conclude the debate on a Prayer by half-past eleven. It was the hon. Gentleman's Government who limited it to that hour. I vividly remember the hon. Gentleman keeping us here night after night when we had a majority of only three. I remember Members being brought from hospital and taken through the Division Lobby. If there is a limitation, let us not forget where the blame lies.

Mr. Robert Cooke: That is not the question which I am trying to ask. The Minister said that this special procedure was in some way out of the range of those procedures which should be dealt with affirmatively, that somehow there was some special reason for allowing it to go through the House without being discussed. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why this comes out of the range of those orders which are bound to be discussed by the House? I cannot understand it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9.—(GENERAL VESTING DECLARATIONS.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, Amendment /title 16, in page 9, line 31, to leave out "or shorter".
I think that it might be convenient if with that Amendment we could discuss Amendment No. 17, in line 32, at the end to insert:
Provided that, with the consent in writing of every occupier of any of the land specified in the declaration, the Commission may execute a general vesting declaration before the end of that period of two months, or of the longer period so prescribed, as the case may be.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Willey: The effect of the Amendment is to prevent the Commission executing the general vesting declaration in a period shorter than two months from the first publication of the notice of making a compulsory purchase order without the consent of the occupier. This was discussed in Committee, and I have looked at it again. The important thing is that it should depend on the consent of the occupier.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take it that we are permitted to discuss the Amendment to the proposed Amendment No. 17, namely, in line 1, after the first "of", to insert "every owner and"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. I think it would be convenient if that were discussed at the same time.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This case was discussed in Committee, when we were dealing with the general vesting declaration, which is coupled with the last Clause on special procedure. I have called it an abominable procedure. I cannot think of an apt Parliamentary word to describe it, although I can think of many unparliamentary ones. Under the special procedure the Commission can take the citizen's land from him and follow up by signing its own conveyance of the land to itself—because that is what a general vesting declaration is—thereby setting aside anyone else who has an interest in the land. That is a most depressing picture. Under subsection (2) as it stood the Commission could exercise its right to convey the property to itself within a period less than two months.
We are grateful to the Minister for Amendment No. 16, which removes the words "or shorter", so that the compulsory purchase order can grant a longer time between the order and the general vesting declaration, but the right hon. Gentleman has inserted a proviso to the effect that
with the consent in writing of every occupier o£ the land … the Commission may execute a general vesting declaration before the end of that period of two months.
The reason for executing a general vesting declaration earlier would, I presume, be for the Commission to take over the land, and possibly to pay compensation. But the occupier is not concerned in that. It is the owner who is concerned about the general vesting declaration and about compensation being paid, and so on. But he is omitted from the Clause. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said:
Let us suppose that the land of one of the small owners"—
and I stress the word "owners"—
who are so dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) "—
and they are, and I am not ashamed of it; these are the people who will be hurt by the Bill—
has been compulsorily acquired. I ask the Committee to suppose that this small owner wants his compensation as quickly as possible, perhaps to move. If he can get agreement with the Commission, why should not the Commission and he agree to have a shorter period?
It is because we have this consideration in our minds that my right hon. Friend is not minded at the moment to accept the Amendment. There would be cases where the owner would be disadvantaged if the Amendment were accepted "—
that was the Amendment to remove the words "or shorter"—
Therefore, I will give the undertaking that the Minister will look at this point again to see what the general effect might be and whether the balance of advantage would lie in accepting the Amendment"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 5th July, 1966; c. 309.]
That was a very frank undertaking, given entirely from the point of view of the owner; yet only the occupier is required to agree that there should be a shorter period.
The occupier may be there under no tenancy at all. He may be a weekly tenant, or a person who has over-stayed his tenancy. He is just an occupier. What right has he to talk about a general vesting declaration, and the ownership of

the land? This is nonsense. Why should a man who is there possibly under no tenancy agreement but merely as an occupier of the property, give the Commission the right to convey to itself someone else's property?
I entirely agree that if the owner is included the owner can permit a shorter period. There is some point in that. That is why we have put down an Amendment to the effect that the owner and the occupier should agree to the vesting declaration being made in a shorter period than two months. I am discussing the Amendment and understand that I do not move the Amendment until the Minister's Amendment has been voted upon.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) wish to divide on his Amendment to Amendment No. 17?

Mr. Graham Page: I wish to move the Amendment——

Mr. Willey: And it will be negatived.

Mr. Page: On a point of Order. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of speaking to my Amendment to his Amendment. I rose earlier only because I did not know whether we were discussing my Amendment. I hope that he will be given a chance to answer what I said about my Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I would not prevent any hon. Gentleman from taking any legitimate opportunity which is required. I understood that three Amendments were being taken together, but apparently not.

Mr. Willey: My recollection is that, in Standing Committee, we were concerned about the owner-occupier, but it seems to me that the only people who may be disadvantaged are the occupiers. For this reason, I would resist the Amendment. I think that it is better to leave this and to rely upon the consent of those who might consider themselves adversely affected.

Mr. Eyre: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in these circumstances, an occupier could be a trespasser, and that his answer is therefore inadequate in that respect?
Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 32, at end insert:
Provided that, with the consent in writing of every occupier of any of the land specified in the declaration, the Commission may execute a general vesting declaration before the end of that period of two months, or of the longer period so prescribed, as the case may be.—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 10, line 4, to leave out 'conclusive'.
We had considerable discussion on this in Standing Committee, when the Minister said:
Hon. Members have raised points particularly about the wording of the subsection, and particularly the word 'conclusive'. I am quite willing to look at the wording again if the purpose of the subsection is recognised—that we have to establish definitely the date of the operation, for the reasons I gave. If that is established, of course I am willing to see whether the fears of hon. Gentlemen are justified and if necessary to consider the wording again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 5th July. 1966; c. 314.]
Thus, it is quite clear that the Minister is concerned only that the certificate shall be found to have been served, but it does not appear to be necessary to have "conclusive" evidence.
If the Amendment were accepted, the subsection should read:
For the purposes of this Act, a certificate by the Commission that the service of notices required by the last preceding subsection was completed on a date specified in the certificate shall be evidence of the fact so stated.
The background to this is that an official of the Commission is entitled to give a certificate to say that a notice has been served.
Obviously, it is necessary to have some provision like that, because there may be a dispute about whether a notice has been served. For the Commission to say "We sent it" is prima facie evidence that the notice was served, but I do not see why that should be conclusive evidence. If it is considered to be conclusive evidence, we have the position that even though the person to whom the notice was addressed conclusively proved that it was served on someone else, perhaps someone living in his street, it would be considered that it had been properly served and that could not be contraverted in any way.
From what the Minister said in Committee, it appeared that he accepted that a difficulty could arise. We are, therefore,

disappointed that he has not tabled an Amendment. Perhaps he will accept our proposal, as we feel strongly that this matter should be put right.

Mr. Skeffington: We discussed this subject at some length in Committee on 5th July, when my right hon. Friend explained the need to have absolute certainty on this point to prevent any doubt being thrown on a title to land in a vesting declaration.
It will be generally agreed that the resting declaration procedure should be followed so that the interests of those who might subsequently purchase or come into possession of land from the Commission are not jeopardised. That is why the certificate procedure has, in this context, been thought for a long time to be necessary and conclusive. Although the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) expressed doubt about whether it is necessary, it is as well to remind the House that in Schedule Four of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, there is a specific model in this context—which it was thought fit by the then Conservative Administration to incorporate in the recodified Act—and it states:
3. For the purposes of section seventy-five of this Act, a certificate given by the acquiring authority stating that the service of notices on occupiers required by subsection (5) of that section was completed on a date specified in the certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the fact so stated".
Although my right hon. Friend has looked carefully into this matter, we consider that it would be wrong, if one is using the vesting declaration procedure, to do anything which might throw doubt on the Commission's title to any specified land.
To take the matter further, we wanted to establish whether or not any person would be disadvantaged because the word "conclusive" is used. Only two possible cases might arise where an owner or occupier could possibly suffer from this provision. First, it is possible that an individual might have to leave his land without adequate notice if the wording of the Clause as now drafted is accepted, but if that were to happen, then under the normal provisions for compensation in respect of compulsory purchase, that could be taken into account and there would be no disadvantage caused to the individual.
The second possible case—and I assure hon. Members that we have made a thorough investigation—might arise in the event of a person not being able to serve a notice of objection to severance under Schedule 3 in time. In such a case we have the advantage that the Opposition have tabled Amendments to Schedule 3, which we will debate later. In this way the Opposition are putting right a possible gap in the defence of the individual and, for these reasons and because in the first case I cited no disadvantage would be suffered, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 206, in page 10, line 4, to insert:
(5) In the application of this section to Scotland a general vesting declaration shall contain a particular description of the lands affected, subject to the provisions of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874.

This Amendment links up with Amendments 207 and 208, which I hope to move later. Subsection (4) as it stands makes provision, which is very necessary in Scotland, for the recording of the general vesting declaration in the General Register of Sasines of Scotland. This is the method whereby title of land is obtained in Scotland. It is one of the essential requirements of Scottish conveyancing law and practice that the Register should contain a particular description of the land to which title is being obtained. That is subject to the provisions of Section 60 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874, as amended by the 1924 Act of the same nature.

The recording of the general vesting declaration as such is meaningless in Scotland unless at the same time there is recorded a notice under Clause 9(3). As the Bill stands, the only way is to specify the land. A better way would be to make it a statutory requirement that the general vesting declaration should contain, as a matter of course, the detailed description that is necessary for the General Register. Then, and only then, can this provision make sense. I am advised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) that the Clause is totally

unworkable in Scotland as it stands, so I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): There is no disagreement between the intention of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) and his hon. Friends and the Government in this matter. It is only a question of how we proceed. The intention was by regulations to prescribe the form of the general vesting declaration, and to require the use of description by reference, as the hon. Member has suggested, or, failing that, a particular description so as to enable the description given in the general vesting declaration to be linked with earlier descriptions of the same land already on the Register.
I have expressed it in that way, if I may say so, because the advice given to me suggests that the Amendment as it stands could be misread, and I know that would not be the intention of the three sponsors of the Amendment. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly that the point should be in the Bill as well as in the intention of Ministers and regulations, I am quite willing to advise my right hon. Friend that this should be so; with the provision that I think I should be able to consult the Lord Advocate about this so that we get exactly right the kind of insertion to be made, in view of the doubt expressed by him about the phraseology. I therefore accept the Amendment in principle, with that reservation.

Mr. Manuel: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his acceptance of the intention of the Amendment. I only point out the success that can be achieved by a lay Member, not a lawyer, talking common sense and achieving his object.

Mr. Rossi: That is probably due to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) comes from north of the Border, and is more acquainted with the matter than others.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(EFFECT OF GENERAL VESTING DECLARATION.)

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 207: In page 11, line 25, after "and", insert "(d)",


with Amendment No. 208: In page 11, line 31, at end insert,
and the provisions of paragraph (d) of the foregoing subsection shall not apply where a notice of objection to severance has been served on the Commission in terms of the said Schedule",
to which Amendment No. 207 is a paving Amendment.

Mr. Baker: In view of the fact that Amendment 207 is a minor drafting Amendment and Amendment 208 follows on, may I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move it formally?

Mr. Speaker: The correct thing to do would be to speak to the second Amendment while moving the first.

Mr. Baker: I am much obliged for your guidance. I beg to move, in page 11, line 31——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member misunderstood me. He will move the first Amendment and in moving it will speak to the greater Amendment to which it is a paver.

Mr. Baker: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move Amendment No. 207: in page 11, line 25, after "and" to insert "(d)."
The difficulties in Scots law practice vis-à-vis this Bill do not end with the Amendment I have just moved, because under Schedule 3 the provision for service of notice of objection to severance may result in variation of the land to which title is to be obained. This may occur in one or other of a number of ways. If the Land Commission acts under paragraph 6(a) of Schedule 3,
the Commission shall serve notice on him withdrawing the notice to treat deemed to have been served on him in respect of his interest in the land proposed to be severed,
or be deemed to have so acted under paragraph 7, which states:
If the Commission do not take action in accordance with the last preceding paragraph within the period allowed by that paragraph, then at the end of that period they shall be deemed to have acted in accordance with subparagraph (a) of that paragraph.
Notice to treat is thereby dropped altogether and therefore a recording in the general register of the Court of Sasine must also be dropped. Unless this is done, title to land will be obtained by operation of the general law despite the

fact that the Bill provides that it should not be. That is one of the main reasons for moving this Amendment. Recording will have to be prevented, which it is not at present. The House may wonder why. The answer is to be found in the addendum to Clause 10(a) which does not amend subsection (2). In essence, therefore, it is necessary to prevent the recording or the Commission will obtain the title specified in the general vesting declaration.
Schedule 3(6, b) provides that the Commission shall:
serve notice on him that the general vesting declaration shall have effect, in relation to his interest in the land proposed to be severed, as if the whole of that land had been comprised in the declaration (and in the compulsory purchase order, if part only of that land was comprised in that order),
We shall be wanting a title to the land which is not covered in the general vesting declaration, and this is simply not good enough for the General Register of Sasines of Scotland.
The alternative would be to provide for the recording of the general vesting declaration in addition to any notice under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 3. Clearly it is better to start afresh with a new general vesting declaration. If any variation results from the remit to the Lands Tribunal under paragraph 6(c) of Schedule 3, which reads,
refer the notice of objection to severance to the Lands Tribunal and notify him that it has been so referred",
the general vesting declaration then becomes superseded, and it should then be redrawn afresh if the tribunal is to make a change under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3.
I should emphasise that we are dealing with cases of severance only. These Amendments, if accepted, would stop recording of general vesting declarations whenever a question of notice of objection to severance arises. Thus, the existing provisions are unworkable as they stand, and if they reach the Statute Book in their present state, I am advised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), they will make complete nonsense of land registration in Scotland.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: For the benefit of our English colleagues, I should explain that recording is a Scottish


speciality and there is no analogous step in England. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) and his hon. Friends, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie), for drawing our attention to what is undoubtedly a defect in the Bill, but their attempt to remedy it does not go quite far enough. There are at least three other Amendments which may have to be considered if we are to take the logic of the hon. Member's argument to its proper conclusion.
The defect to which the Amendment calls attention is the lack of any provision for delaying the recording of a vesting declaration when a notice of objection to severance has been served. In order to cure this defect, however, we should have to do at least two things. It is necessary to deal with the case in which the objection is upheld and also the case in which the objection is rejected. What is required is that the recording of the declaration should follow the determination by the arbiter of the objection, and in the case where he decides that severance is not to be permitted and the Commission proceed to acquire a larger area than that which they had originally proposed to acquire, a description of the whole area will be substituted for the description first contemplated.
I am advised that to achieve this we should have to promote Amendments to Clause 10(4) and to paragraphs 5 and 11 of Schedule 3. I am prepared to advise my right hon. Friend that these Amendments should be made. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing this out. It makes a better Bill. While I do not suggest that we should accept this Amendment at this stage, I hope that hon. Members are satisfied by my assurance.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Member speaks of a larger area. Do I understand that although a larger area is taken, any of the individual parts of it will still be recorded in detail?

Dr. Mabon: That will have to be dealt with as in the matter which we discussed previously—how we should proceed. I said that I accepted the last Amendment in principle subject to consultation with the Lord Advocate as to the precise insertion to be made. We shall take

advantage of another place, perhaps, to make the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: In view of what has been said, does the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Baker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11.—(REGISTRATION AND REVOCATION OF COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS.)

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 11, to leave out lines 37 to 43.
Perhaps with this Amendment we could also discuss Amendment No. 21. This Clause deals with registration and revocation. The point was raised that the revocation itself should be registered. This Amendment provides for this in effect to be done.

Mr. Graham Page: I rise to express gratitude to the Minister for this Amendment. I do not think he believed us in Committee. It was a case of practical solicitors talking, and he thought that we were making a lot of fuss. I am very glad that he has taken our advice and has moved this Amendment. It will be a great help in conveyancing practice.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 22, at end insert:
(5) Where a compulsory purchase order is made by the Commission in respect of land in England or Wales, it shall be the duty of the Commission, as soon as may be after—

(a) the order is made, or
(b) in consequence of any proceedings the order is quashed in respect of all or any part of the land comprised in the order, or
(c) the order is revoked by the Commission in respect of all or any part of that land, or
(d) by virtue of section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 the powers exercisable in pursuance of the order cease to be exercisable in respect of all or any part of that land,

to give notice of the event in question to the proper officer of any council by whom the order is required to be registered under subsection (1) of this section, and to furnish him with all such information relating to the order, or to the event in question, as is needed to enable him to perform any duties imposed on him by rules made under section 15(6) of the Land Charges Act 1925.—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 12.—(GENERAL POWERS OF MANAGEMENT.)

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 13, line 18 at the end to insert:
(6) Notwithstanding the establishment of the Commission by statute and notwithstanding the compulsory acquisition of land by the Commission a tenant of land in which there is for the time being an interest belonging to the Commission shall have the same rights and liabilities in respect of his tenancy and of the land subject thereto as if the Commission were a person not established by statute; and in addition the Commission shall ensure that suitable alternative accommodation shall be provided for any lawful occupier of such land who may be displaced by the exercise of the functions of the Commission in the acquisition, management or disposal of such land.
Whilst on the last few Amendments all has been sweetness and light on both sides of the Border, I doubt whether that situation will last much longer. However, I must confess that in Committee there were some murmurings of sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, from the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look at this matter again.
This subsection which we seek to insert is designed to protect the rights of tenants where land is purchased by the Commission. We think this is very necessary. Indeed, in Committee we moved a somewhat similar Amendment to give tenants the right to have alternative accommodation provided for them by the Commission.
We had in mind three types of tenants, and I should like to discuss them separately. The first type, and possibly those most affected, would be residential tenants. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said that residential tenants would have some protection under the Rent Act. But I am afraid that the only protection that I can see they have under that Act is that the Crown must, as all other landlords must, go to court to obtain an order for possession. The Crown cannot take direct action. However, I think that is as far as it goes. As I understand the position, a residential tenant protected by the Rent Act would not be able to raise the same defences against the Crown, and therefore against the Commission, that he could raise against a. private landlord. Therefore, there has been a derogation from the

position of the tenant once the Commission becomes his landlord.
This is very important. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that in these cases the Commission would always rehouse the tenants. I have no doubt that he genuinely meant that. But the Commission will be a body the like of which we have never seen before It is quite different from a local authority which has the duty of rehousing. This is a Commission, albeit with local offices, but which will sit in Newcastle-on-Tyne. It may well have difficulty in organising alternative accommodation for tenants. If the Parliamentary Secretary argues that the Commission would rehouse, I can see no objection to giving the tenants that right by Statute. If that is to be the intention of the Commission, why not record it and give the tenants a right under the Statute?
The Minister may argue that the Commission, being a public body, will look after things in a responsible fashion. But I do not accept that public bodies are always that responsible. In my maiden speech in this House, I said that it was time we had a tenants' charter for council house tenants, and councils are democratically elected. We on this side feel that the rights of tenants should be protected in the Bill so that they have a right of recourse to the courts should the Commission not provide them with alternative accommodation and so that they should suffer no derogation.
The other class is the business tenants, whose interests the Minister said would be protected by Part II of the 1954 Act. But it seems that there would be some derogation from that by virtue of the Commission being a Crown body. I quote from Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 23, paragraph 1735, dealing with modification on grounds of public interest.
Where the interest of the landlord or any superior landlord in the property comprised in any tenancy belongs to or is held for the purposes of a government department or is held by a local authority, statutory undertakers or a development corporation, to the Minister or board in charge of any Government Department may certify that it is requisite for the purposes of such landlord that the use or occupation of the property, or part of it, be changed by a particular date.
This seems a right which the tenant would lose by virtue of the landlord being the Land Commission. Then there is the question of agricultural tenants,


and while the Agricultural Holdings Act applies to the Crown, there is here a derogation, although it may be only slight. Halsbury, Volume 1, on page 333, says:
The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, applies to land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown and of the Duchy of Lancaster, and to land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, and also to land the interest of the landlord or tenant of which is held on behalf of Her Majesty for the purposes of any Government department, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.
Again we have a whittling away of the rights of tenants once the Crown, through the Commission, comes to hold the land.
There is another question, a sort of proposition in futuro. The Government are proposing to bring in a leasehold reform Measure enabling tenants to buy in their leases. How will it be affected when the Land Commission is the leaseholder? Will the tenant be able to purchase the interest from the Commission as from a private landlord? It is such questions as this that make us believe that tenants should be fully protected. Indeed, I am not alone in believing that this should be so because, in Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. L. Alldritt) said:
I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister if he will look at this problem, particularly the first point in relation to the occupiers of residential property. It is all very well to say that the Rent Act protects them, but I have seen this sort of scheme in operation, where a local authority desires a certain property for the development of some scheme; it goes to its Committee, it takes a decision to serve the notice to acquire the premises, it is decided that the legal department should proceed from there, and at the same time an offer of alternative accommodation will be made. I have frequently known cases where the local authority has not been able to produce the kind of property which should be offered to that person, and quite often no offer has been made by the time the legal department has gone to court for the order. At the end of six weeks the sheriff's officer has appeared and no offer has been made. The same thing can happen here unless it is made explicit."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12th July, 1966; c. 391.]
Thus, these sentiments come from both sides. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will give expression to his intention, for he has said that he intends that the Commission should be a fair landlord. We ask that the rights of the tenant should be enshrined in the Bill and not left to the discretion of the Commission.

Sir D. Glover: I support the Amendment, for it is rather important. One of my reasons for so doing is the quotation from the Committee stage which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has just read. One of the troubles with a local authority in this sort of situation is that it finds it difficult to provide alternative accommodation, and unless there is specific provision, the Commission will be tempted not to do what is necessary. I know that the Commission will have the best intentions in the world, but it is not easy to rehouse ordinary people in homes or businesses in business and it may involve considerable expense.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt) pointed out, even a city like Liverpool has difficulty finding the sort of accommodation required to carry out its obligations, but it has to do so because of its statutory obligations. The Land Commission will not have facilities like the City of Liverpool and will find it much more difficult to carry out what the Minister intends—and I accept his assurance that it would be the intention to do all this. It will be much safer if the provision is written into the Bill and I am sure that every person affected would feel a much greater sense of assurance if protected by the Statute itself.
I would have thought that this was the one Amendment which the Minister and his advisers would welcome with open arms tonight, because they are in much the same sort of position as the people we are discussing. They are themselves about to be evicted and are looking for alternative accommodation. I am sure that in their hearts they have the sort of feelings which will be shared by those concerned if the Amendment is not accepted. They are now experiencing uncertainty about the future. The intention would not be altered, but much more assurance would be given if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Willey: Of course I respond to the invitation to be sympathetic. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) anticipated that I would say that the Commission was a responsible body and would act in a responsible way, and he and the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) assumed that I would say that


the Commission would make arrangements with the local authority concerned.
But the Amendment would go much further than anything in the Ninth Schedule of the 1957 Housing Act. The difficulty about imposing such a statutory obligation on the Commission is that the Commission is to be a Crown body and any corsideration of placing obligations on a Crown body would have to be undertaken in another way. I do not think that we could deal with that subject only in the context of the Land Commission.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: That is a very brief reply to a very important Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) set out in some detail the difficulties which will arise over tenants if the Commission uses its legal rights, and there is no reason to suppose that the Commission will not use these rights. It may have a responsibility towards them, but it may also feel that it has a responsibility to people other than the tenants of property which it takes over. After all, these tenants are one or two people among perhaps a mass of people for whom the Commission may feel responsible in developing some property and to house them.
This may apply to residential, business and agricultural tenants. My hon. Friend also asked about the position of the leaseholder, who is to have the right to purchase his property, if the right hon. Gentleman's Bill on that subject comes forward. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Commission will be a commercial undertaking. It should accept the responsibilities of a normal landlord and not seek to hide behind its Crown privilege. This all arises from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman insisted on making the Commission a Crown body, despite our arguments in Committee.
Now that it is a Crown body, as the Bill stands, its powers over tenants in particular should be restricted and Parliament should not authorise it, as it will do without a Clause of this sort, to use its legal rights to evict its tenants. The local authorities, when they acquire residential property compusorily, are obliged to give an assurance to the

Minister that they will be able to find suitable accommodation for those who will be affected by the development which they intend to undertake.
Why should not the Commission be similarly obliged? The right hon. Gentleman has misconceived the position of his own creation. Once he has set up this body, with certain legal rights, it will be the duty of that body to use those rights to the advantage of the greatest number of people that it is serving. If there are one or two tenants, who ought to be found alternative accommodation, but the Commission cannot find it, then it is seriously going to give consideration, unless it is obliged by the Bill to do so, to these tenants? It may well say that this is a most important development which is going to serve 1,000 people and that it cannot pay attention to the tenants in a house, and that they must go, for the benefit of the 1,000 people who are to be housed. It would be perfectly correct to use its legal powers in that way. What we want to do is to prevent it doing that and to force it to take into account the hardship which it may be causing to the one or two tenants.

Mr. Rossi: May I mention one incidental point, regarding the position of sitting tenants in controlled private residential tenancies under the Rent Acts? One has the assurance of the Minister, which one accepts, that if the Land Commission takes over a private property in which there are controlled tenants, it will continue to act as a good landlord and the tenant may have no fear at all.
Has it occurred to the Minister that the tenants will be losing a valuable proprietorial right, which has a definite cash value to them? A sitting tenant in rent-controlled property enjoys something that he can sell to the owner for quite considerable sums of money. There is quite a difference between the value of a house without vacant possession and the value of a house with a sitting tenant. The sitting tenant holds that value. It is a very frequent transaction for the sitting tenant to be paid to go. He receives a capital sum which very often enables him to pay the deposit for his own home. When the Land Commission steps in, immediately, overnight, he loses that cash value.
I would like the Minister to consider this situation to see whether there is a way of compensating sitting tenants under the Rent Act for this cash value of which they will be deprived if the Bill continues in its present form.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16.—(GENERAL POWER OF DISPOSAL.)

Mr. Farr: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 16, line 42, after "Act", to insert:
and except when selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of any land to the person from whom that land was acquired".
This also is a fairly simple little Amendment. Once again, perhaps falsely, I am encouraged by the success of two or three of the recent Amendments which have been put from this side of the House. Briefly, our concern is with what will happen when the Land Commission has compulsorily acquired land from someone, perhaps someone with only an acre or two, who has for years resisted pressure to sell his land. The Commission, being rather uncertain in itself, may find after the land has been compulsorily acquired that due to a change of plan, the development envisaged has been altered and the Commission intends to dispose of the land in question.
In that case, we maintain that it is only fair that if the original owner from whom the land was acquired compulsorily in the first place wishes to have the land back, special considerations should apply. We do not consider it good enough to leave in the Bill, in lines 44 and 45 of page 16, the criteria which place an obligation on the Commission to get the best price available.
Our reason for regarding that as inadequate—indeed, grossly unjust—is that if Mrs. So-and-so, for example, had an acre or two which has been taken by the Commission and which later is found to be not wanted, Mrs. So-and-so's neighbour may well be prepared to pay an exceptionally high price, well over the odds, to acquire the acre or two, which he or she may have coveted for years. We suggest, therefore, that in a situation of that nature, special considerations should apply. I challenge the Minister to deny that an injustice would be avoided unless an Amendment such as we suggest is incorporated in the Bill.
Why we on this side find the Bill so inhuman and strongly object to it is that the personal, human problems, which matter not to the great landowners but to the people with an acre or two, appear to be of no importance or interest to the Minister. To avoid gross injustice in the case of which I have given details, the Minister must give a satisfactory answer to the Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington: This is an interesting but rather curious Amendment, particularly in the terms in which the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has moved it, very sincerely I have no doubt. The legal import of the words of the Amendment carries an implication that the Commission should be prepared to dispose of land, to the person from whom it has been bought, at less than the best price.
The hon. Member spoke feelingly about the justice of so doing in certain cases, disposing of land back to the person from whom it was bought, but, as the Amendment is worded, it would not impose any duty on the Commission to do so. It merely suggests that this would be a good thing. It is a pious intention. If that is the significance of the words—and, as I say, that is the legal import of the words—then I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there are sufficient powers in the Bill for the Commission to do that already. In fact, that is the result of an Amendment which we discussed earlier, whereby my right hon. Friend could give directions in suitable cases.
I want to make it absolutely clear that while this power does exist it is very unlikely that, in the normal course of events, the Commission would do this, for the simple reason that where the Commission purchases land it will do so in one or another of the cases which we have already discussed, and where there is a planning decision. It will be motivated to acquire land for public development or for a private person to develop it; but the normal purpose of the Commission is to get land for development at the right place in order that regional and national plans can be brought to fruition. So that although the permissive power which the Amendment seeks is already given, I say frankly to the House that it would be in the most extraordinary circumstances that


the land would be given back to the original or the last owner at a price less than the best the Commission could obtain. That is the purpose of the Commission. What the Amendment seeks is not ruled out, and therefore the Amendment is redundant, in that, under the Bill as now drafted, there is this power, although it is very unlikely that the Minister would ever so direct.

Mr. Graham Page: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the power is already in the Bill, but, as I understood his explanation of that, it is that the Minister could give directions for the use of this power and that the property should be sold at a lower figure. Could the hon. Gentleman assist the House, or could the Minister assist the House, by saying in what circumstances those directions would be given?
I believe that there are some rules for the resale of property by a Government Department to the person from whom it had been compulsorily acquired. We do not need to go through all the Crichel Down case, but this point did arise in a dramatic way in that case, and there have been statements by Ministers, I think—I cannot recall more than the gist of the statements now—to the effect that in certain instances offers from the previous owners would be considered and sale could be made to them at under market value.
I think that is important in this case, because we have already been told by the Minister on more than one occasion today that the Commission will be buying land in advance. An Amendment to ensure it would see there was planning permission before it bought was rejected. Therefore, it will be buying blind—as it were, gambling on land, as to whether it will be used or not. It could well be that circumstances would change in five or 10 years' time; that while the Commission would be holding the land it might decide it would not need it for development after all. In those circumstances I would hope that, acting as a responsible body, the Land Commission would say, "We have got this land on compulsory purchase from Mr. X. He is still next door; he is still farming the farm next door. We wonder if he wants the property back. Let us ask him." Then if Mr. X were to offer a reasonable

figure, which might not be the best figure, any reasonable and responsible landowner would sell back in that way, and I would hope the Commission would do so.
Unless, however, that is expressed in the Bill the Commission would be in difficulty. It would have to go to the Minister for special directions. As it stands, we are not certain on what basis the Minister would give those directions.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington: If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, the administrative rules to which the hon. Gentleman referred normally relate to surplus agricultural land purchased by Departments in accordance with their duty, and I do not think they would apply in this case. The Minister could in certain circumstances give a direction to the Commission, but I certainly cannot indicate in what circumstances. As I envisage the operations of the Commission, it is very unlikely in practice that it would buy land if it was to be returned to the vendor. There would be no point in buying it. But if there was a particular reason, directions could be given by the Minister. Normally, I do not think this would occur.

Mr. Rippon: I do not know that I quite understood what the Parliamentary Secretary was saying. I am a little surprised at his suggestion that the administrative procedures adopted for the Crichel Down type of case will not apply here. I should have thought that there would be a number of occasions on which the Commission in buying land in advance of requirements would be taking agricultural land.

Mr. Skeffington: Normally, the Commission will be operating in circumstances quite different from those in which land is taken by a Department. It will be either in accordance with Clause 6(4) or when there is a planning decision. In those circumstances, the land is hardly likely to be sold as agricultural land like the case of the Air Ministry. In that sense there is no parallel.

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He said that it will not normally be agricultural land; it will be land on which there is planning permission. But one of the difficulties is that the Commission can acquire land


before planning permission is granted, and if it does not get planning permission after having bought in advance there may well be circumstances in which it finds that it has land that it does not require for the purpose it originally had in mind. Surely in those circumstances it is not unreasonable to have an administrative undertaking comparable to that given in Crichel Down cases, that the land would be offered back by the Commission to the previous owners on reasonable terms.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 16, line 45, to leave out "in their opinion".
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could discuss with this Amendment No. 31, in Clause 18, page 18, line 38, leave out from "which" to "could" in line 39, and Amendment No. 117, in Schedule 1, page 91, line 28, at end insert "direction".

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection if the Opposition have no objection.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged. This is adopting an Amendment moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Standing Committee. It was withdrawn because I wished to assure myself that it would not affect title. By Amendment No. 117 we ensure that title is not prejudiced. So I am delighted to be able to accept an Amendment moved by the Opposition in Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 17, line 27, to leave out subsection (5).
When we debated Amendments to the subsection in Standing Committee I was told that my Amendment was meaningless. This time I have avoided that by moving an Amendment to delete the entire subsection. Such surgery seemed to be preferable to fencing about with the ligatures which we had last time.
When we come to consider this subsection which we want to get out of the Bill, we see that the Commission may by compulsory purchase buy land for one purpose and sell it for another. As the Minister said during the Committee, that is very much in line with Government thinking on the matter in the eventual outcome after the second appointed day, because then the only test is whether the

land is suitable for material development in the opinion of the Commission. I wish that he had cut out those words, as he did in the last subsection. But we still think that this can be wrong and may cause hardship.
The Commission will go along and say, "We want to buy this land for a particular purpose." Presumably it will have one in mind when it purchases the land by compulsion, and presumably compensation in respect of severance and injurious affection will be settled and paid on that basis, whereas if the use of the land is changed, the landowner who has land left round there may not have got his proper compensation. That is one point with which we are concerned. It seems to me that it would be possible for one local authority which had compulsory powers to say to the Commission, "We would like to have that particular plot of land", and, at a later stage, before it was transferred to that authority, for one of the regional electricity boards to come along and say, "We would like it", and for the Commission to sell the land to the electricity board. I appreciate that before the second appointed day it would have to go to the Minister, but afterwards it would not.

The Clause gives us concern because, in all the circumstances, there can be injustice both to the person from whom the land is bought and to the person for whom it is bought.

Mr. Allason: I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has said.

Clause 16(5) is one which sounds all right when accepted by itself, but it must be read in conjunction with two other clauses. Under Clause 16(5), the Commission is empowered to buy land for one purpose and to make use of it for an entirely different one. If it is read in conjunction with Clause 81, it will be found that the compensation need not be changed on the change of use. Therefore, there must be a great temptation to the Commission to allege that it is going to buy the land for the cheapest possible reason that it can see, and use it subsequently for the most expensive purpose, thereby saving itself a great deal of money and being grossly unfair to the landowner.

Another temptation arises under the operation of Clause 6(4, d), where, before the second appointed day, the Commission is entitled to acquire land for the purpose of providing Crownhold land. That gives it a wide open chance to take any land it likes simply because it sees a bit of land and thinks that it would be a good idea to have it for crownhold. Then, as soon as its compulsory purchase order is confirmed, it can come back to Clause 16(5) and turn it over to some other use. It drives a coach straight through the evidently good intentions of the Minister, namely that he is trying to circumscribe the actions of the Commission before the second appointed day. The Commission has absolute power to take any land it likes, and it is virtually encouraged to do so by a method of cheating. I regret having to use that word about a body which will no doubt be composed of most eminent people, but the Commission will be encouraged to behave in a thoroughly irresponsible manner, and it is a great pity that this subsection is still in the Bill. I hope that it will be deleted tonight.

Mr. Willey: Occasionally both the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) get too flam-buoyant. I think that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead will regret suggesting that the Commission will cheat. It will be a responsible public body, accountable for its actions, and I do not think that there is any risk of it behaving in the way suggested.
The hon. Member for North Flyde said that his previous effort to deal with this subsection had been brushed off as meaningless. This time he has gone much too far. If we accept the Amendment, the result will be not meaningless, but meaningful. The effect of accepting it will be that the Commission will not be able to dispose of land in some cases. It might, for instance, buy land for a new town, but for some reason or other the new town might not be proceeded with. If the Amendment were accepted, the Commission would have to hold the land and would not be able to dispose of it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18.—(CONCESSIONARY CROWNHOLD DISPOSITIONS)

Amendment made: In page 18, line 38, leave out from "which" to "could" in line 39.—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, Amendment No. 33, in page 19, line 22, to leave out from "that" to "and" in line 25 and to insert:
no tenancy of the land comprised in the disposition (in this section referred to as 'the crownhold land') or of any part of that land shall be granted except with the consent in writing of the Commission".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I think that with that Amendment it might be convenient to discuss the Amendment to it in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), in line 4, at the end to add
such consent not to be unreasonably withheld".
and Amendment No. 232, in line 25, to leave out "two" and to insert "three".

Mr. Skeffington: This Amendment springs from a review of this Clause because if the crownholder lets his home for a term not exceeding two years he is not in breach of his crownhold covenant by reason of the fact that he is unable to obtain possession at the end of that period because of the operation of the Rent Act, and it makes no difference that he might have availed himself of Section 14 of the Rent Act, 1965, which enables owner-occupiers who rent their homes for a short period to recover possession at the end of it, but failed to do so.
The right to let his house for less than two years therefore provides someone who wishes to exploit the cash value of this concession with an easy way to do it. He can lease the house at full value at what is, in fact, a permanent arrangement because the lessee knows that he is safe in possession and the Commission would thereby effectively lose its right to recover the concession.
It would be possible for the Commission to insert in a crownhold disposition taking the form of a tenancy a covenant, not being a crownhold covenant, forbidding any subletting. But this would produce the surprising result that if the crownholder let for more than two


years he would breach a crownhold covenant for which the penalty would be the compulsory purchase of his interest at full market value, less the concession, while if he sublets for less than two years he is liable to forfeiture with no compensation. This would obviously be quite indefensible.
The right answer, therefore, which the Amendment seeks to achieve, is to delete the two-year exemption. The crown-holder always has to get permission to let, and the Commission can be relied upon to act reasonably and generously in deserving cases.
1.45 a.m.
It might be convenient for me to say a few words about the Amendment to Amendment No. 33, put down by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and a number of his hon. Friends. I must ask the House to resist the Opposition Amendment, for several technical reasons, which those familiar with the Landlord and Tenant Acts will recognise. The Amendment to the Amendment provides that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. It would have the effect of preventing the Commission from stopping a crownholder converting his concession into a cash profit.

Clause 18(4)—as I hope it will be amended by Amendment No. 33—and subsection (5) prevent a crownholder who wants to sell his interest from doing so without offering to sell it back to the Commission at a price equal to the market price less the amount of the concession. In other words, the Commission is in a position to make a crownholder who wishes to dispose of his interest repay the value of the concession. I am sure that this will be regarded as common sense and good policy by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

But it is necessary to go further than this, because a crownholder, without selling, could very easily cash his concession by granting a lease for a sufficient period at the full economic rent. It is therefore necessary for the Commission to be able to refuse a crownholder consent to the granting of the lease unless he repays his concession to the Commission. This condition could not be imposed upon him if the Amendment to Amendment No. 33 were carried. It has been held on a number of occasions that where a

tenant's covenant not to assign or underlet the property let to him is qualified by a proviso that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld—a proviso which the Opposition seek to insert—the only valid grounds on which consent can be withheld are grounds relating to the character or financial responsibility of the tenant or the use to which he wants to put the premises.

This good intention of the Opposition would defeat the whole object that the Commission should be in a position to recover the concession in certain circumstances, and I therefore hope that the Opposition will not think it unreasonable of me to ask the House to resist the Amendment to Amendment No. 33, but will think it right that tenants should all be put in the same position, and that an unscrupulous tenant should not be able to exploit the position, as he can now.

Mr. Allason: It was very valuable to have the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. He gave some explanation for having sought to amend the Clause in answer to our questions in Committee. But although we asked him to make it less oppressive he has made it very much more so. The reason, apparently, is that tenants are likely to cheat. The Commission will never be unscrupulous, but tenants may be. It is a great pity always to legislate for the very worst case. The effect of the change which is proposed here is that if the tenant goes away for a fortnight's holiday and wants to let his house for that fortnight he must obtain the permission of the Commission.
It becomes a little ludicrous when we get down to such short periods. It was for that general reason that the Bill provided for a term not exceeding two years, in order to allow reasonable latitude, but we recognise that there may be unscrupulous tenants. Without delving very deeply into the Clause, I have a feeling that if a crownholder did behave in an unscrupulous manner the Commission would have powers to cope with the situation. It is much better to legislate for the good tenant, and to have a saving Clause for the unscrupulous tenant who will be the exception. We should like to provide that such consent should not be unreasonably withheld: this is the common form in leases.
We are here drafting conditions of leases by legislation, and this condition


would be an important protection for the tenant. If a sub-let is refused, the tenant would have the right to have the courts decide whether his landlord, the Land Commission, was being unreasonable. This is surely a reasonable protection for the tenant. The crownhold tenant is denied equitable treatment simply because the Commission is his landlord. Therefore, we have also put down Amendment No. 232, which would, assuming that Amendment 33 falls, extend the term to three years. This is to emphasise that we believe that reasonable treatment should be accorded to reasonable tenants. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will think again.

Mr. Graham Page: If there is to be no further comment on what my hon. Friend has said, perhaps I might give the Minister time for more thought. We are talking about concessionary crownholds and about what the crownholder may do about letting his property. He is the "blue-eyed boy" who has been chosen to have this concession—we do not know how: presumably by having his name pulled out of a hat, or by what we called "bingo" in Committee. He then has shackles put around him and cannot even let the property weekly without asking the Commission's permission.
This is supposed to be his home. If Government policy continues to keep private builders out of the supply of housing, there will be no freeholds to be bought and the only way anyone will find a home in future will be under the feudal system of crownhold, under which he cannot even let his house while he goes on holiday without permission. This is fantastic, but it is the future which the Government offer.

Mr. Eyre: Referring to the inferior form of ownership which is to be granted under the concessionary crownhold, and the dreadfully restricted form of letting which will be permitted, perhaps the Minister would explain how the mortgaging quality of the property will be adversely affected by the restriction of this letting right. One assumes that, when crownhold leases are granted, the building societies will be called upon to finance some part of the purchase, if this is to operate on anything like the scale described so often by the right hon.

Gentleman who is now Leader of the House.
If that is so, what will be the position of the building societies as mortgagees? Their rights will be heavily limited by the nature of the crownhold holding, and they will not be prepared to advance on this kind of security. The Government will have excluded from this kind of finance the great organisations which have helped so much in respect of home ownership. In other words, by this unreasonable and unnatural restriction, encouragement to home ownership will have received a setback. I press the Parliamentary Secretary to say what will be the position of mortgaging rights as a result of this restriction.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) first referred to the lucky person who becomes a Crownholder and went on to denote that position by saying that such a person would be shackled. The common-sense factor is that nobody need become a crownholder. I need not rehearse all the arguments again, but we have explained the general way in which crownhold will operate; through housing associations, co-operative societies, local authorities and so on. There may be other circumstances in which such concessionary dispositions could be made.
The concession will be valuable in many cases. It is, therefore, right that the Commission and the community should see that it is not exploited. That is all we are trying to secure, and it is not unreasonable. I have already said that the Commission will be a reasonable body and will act reasonably. In the overwhelming number of cases the concession will operate as I said, through the sort of association I mentioned. It will be tenants and crownholders making their own arrangements because they desire to operate the concession. With respect, the suggestions of the hon. Member for Crosby are rather grotesque.

Amendment No. 232 suggests that we leave out two years and insert three. The arguments I have used so far are valid for that Amendment, for if it were accepted a number of people could exploit the value of the concession. That would defeat the object of the operation and I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will support the line we are taking.

Mr. Clegg: The Parliamentary Secretary said that a crownholder chose to be a crownholder and that it was his choice when he bought the land. But under the Commission's powers it is possible for it to buy land from a freeholder and offer it back to him on crownhold terms. There would not be much choice if that happened.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, Amendment No. 34, in line 31, to leave out from "pre-emption" to "a" in line 37 and to insert:
in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(5) The right of pre-emption under such a covenant as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection shall be such that—

(a) where the disposition proposed to be made by the person for the time being entitled to the crownhold interest in the whole or part of the crownhold land is to extend to all the land in which he has that interest, the right of pre-emption will be exercisable in respect of the whole of the last-mentioned land, and
(b) where that disposition is to comprise only part of the land in which that person has the crownhold interest, the right of pre-emption will, at the option of the Commission, be exercisable either in respect of that part or in respect of the whole of the last-mentioned land.

(6) The price to be paid, on the exercise of such a right of pre-emption in respect of the whole or part of the crownhold land, shall be".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Amendments No. 35 and 36.

Mr. Willey: That is convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the purpose of these Amendments is to make it clear that the Commission's right to pre-emption under a covenant contained in a crownholder's disposition extends to the whole of the interest, even though part has been sold.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 40, leave out "referred to in that paragraph" and insert "conferring the right of pre-emption".

In line 44, leave out from "of" to "as" in line 45 and insert:
the crownhold interest in the crownhold land or in that part of it".—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 20.—(NOTICE OF BREACH OF CROWNHOLD COVENANT.)

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, Amendment No. 37, in page 21, line 41, to leave out "and."
Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might be for the convenience of the House if we took Amendments Nos. 38 and 41 with this Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if the House so wishes.

Mr. Willey: The purpose of the Amendment is to afford the Land Commission the opportunity, when it reacquires an interest in land because of a breach of covenant and that breach relates only to part of the interest, to acquire that part only.

Mr. Graham Page: I appreciate that the Minister wants to get on with the Amendments, and to a great extent they are not controversial, but he did not explain this Amendment. When the Commission finds a breach on part of the land it can, as I understand it, acquire that part without the other part. What sort of notice does the crownholder have of this? Is he given notice that the Commission only intends to acquire part? Has the Commission the power to acquire the whole of the land if there is a breach on only part of it? And how, in practice, will this work out? If the crownholder has committed a breach on one part of a house, can there be a severance of the house or of the house and garden? Could we be told a little more about the machinery, and how it will operate?

Mr. Willey: The notice would refer only to the part. The power would be to reacquire the whole. For example, a sports club might have land on part of which it might build, and the re-acquisition would apply only to that part.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 6, at end insert:
(c) state whether (in the circumstances specified in the last preceding paragraph) the Commission propose to execute such a vesting declaration in respect of the whole of the land in which that person's interest subsists or in respect only of a part of that land specified in the notice, as being the part in relation to which the covenant is alleged by the Commission to have been broken".—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 21.—(COMPULSORY ACQUISITION IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 20.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 23, line 4, to leave out from 'section' to the end of line 14 and to insert:
'then, subject to the following provisions of this sect on and, where an order has been made by the county court or the sheriff under subsection (4) of that section, subject to the provisions of that order, the Commission'.
Perhaps we could take Amendment No. 40 with this Amendment, which seeks to meet a point raised by hon. Members opposite in Standing Committee. There were differences. We have overcome them, and have put down this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 23, line 16, at end insert:
'at any time before the end of the period of six months after the date applicable in accordance with the next following subsection.
(2) That date is the date of the occurrence of whichever of the following events last occurs, that is to say—

(a) the period specified in the notice in accordance with subsection (2)(b) of the last preceding section expires without a counter-notice having been served under subsection (3) of that section;
(b) a counter-notice so served is withdrawn;
(c) an application for leave under subsection (4) of that section is determined by the county court or the sheriff;
(d) an appeal against the decision of the county court or the sheriff on such an application, and any further appeal against the decision on such an appeal, is determined or is abandoned or otherwise ceases to have effect or the time for bringing any such appeal or further appeal expires without its having been brought.'.

In line 25, at end insert—
(3) Where the notice under the last preceding section stated that, in the circumstances specified in subsection (2)(b) of that section, the Commission proposed to execute a vesting declaration in respect only of part of the land in which the interest in question subsists, any vesting declaration made under this section in pursuance of that notice shall not extend beyond that part of the land, and the last preceding subsection shall have effect accordingly.

—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 22.—(OWNER'S RIGHT TO REQUIRE COMMISSION TO LET.)

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 25, line 6, to leave out from the beginning to the second "any" in line 8, and to insert:
Where planning permission for the carrying out of material development of any land is for the time being in force".

Under Clause 22 the owner may require the Commission to elect whether or not to purchase. This is a very necessary requirement when there is the possibility of the land being taken by the Commission and where there is planning permission after the second appointed day and also within three months of the date of planning permission granted after the second appointed day.
The effect of this Amendment is to cover cases where planning permission is in force at any time after the first appointed day so that after the first appointed day where the planning permission exists, even though it may be 10 years old, because of the threat that the land may be taken and there is power from the first appointed day for it to be taken. It seems reasonable that the owner should be entitled to ask the Commission whether or not it will take the land and it has to elect one way or the other.
If a compulsory purchase order is threatened, the owner of any property is in a very serious position. If he wants to sell, he finds it quite impossible to do so. We all know cases in which if there is a compulsory purchase order a possible buyer shies away. The owner may be inclined to carry out some development himself, but if it will cost him more money and further investigation by professional authorities before he can carry out the development, he will be chary of doing it because he may become involved in considerable architects' fees and then the Commission take over the property. It seems right that the owner should be able at any time to get a decision on whether the Commission will buy him out or that he is not threatened by the Commission.
This blight, which is so well known already, will operate all over the country after 1st March next year. It will operate from the first appointed day. It is quite unfair to limit the right to elect solely to after the second appointed day and also to within three months only of planning approval. Often the fact of blight is not clearly recognised by an owner of land. Hon. Members will know of many cases where a planning decision has been made without the owner knowing anything about it. There is the possibility of a road passing near a house and at some time later when the


owner intends to sell a search being made and a planning decision order being found and blight being discovered. It would be a great pity to hold it to within three months of planning permission. The Minister may say that in these days a man is bound to learn that planning permission has been granted over his land. Things are improving these days, but the owner of the land may not realise the import of the planning permission, and it seems unfair to tie him down to the three months after planning permission has been granted. The Amendment would make life a little fairer for owners of property suffering from planning blight.

Mr. Skeffington: We had a discussion in Standing Committee on an Amendment which went part of the way, but not all the way, that this Amendment goes. As reported in col. 498 of the Committee Report, my right hon. Friend explained why the protection afforded by Clause 22 was necessary to the owner only after the second appointed day. Only then were the limitations in the existence of planning permission on its own sufficient to enable the Commission to acquire compulsorily land suitable for material development. Before the second appointed day the owner could allege that he was about to carry out early development. If the Commission only wanted to ensure that development would be carried out this could be sufficient to prevent it from acquiring.
It is true that the debate did not cover the power to extend the Clause after the second appointed day to land covered by planning permission granted before that date. There are two reasons which must be taken into account, particularly in view of the omnibus nature of the provisions in the Amendment. If the owners intend to develop presumably they will get on and do so, and if they do not so intend, then it is unreasonable that the Commission should have to deal with the matter. Alternatively, if they do not want to develop because it is not appropriate or profitable, I fail to see why the Commission should be plagued with notices requiring them to elect whether or not to purchase. This would place a heavy burden on the Commission. Having listened to the arguments, I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The Clause accepts that when an owner has planning permission he should be able to call on the Land Commission to make up its mind. The only difference here arises out of the time at which he gets his planning permission. There seems to be no principle or moral behind it, whether he gets it before or after the appointed day.
Here is a land owner with permission to develop his land. Let us say that he owns a factory and has planning permission to extend the factory, or that he has his own dwelling house and has permission to extend it into his garden. Under Clause 6(3,a) if he starts that development the Commission can step in and compulsorily acquire the property. It is only reasonable that the man should know whether, when he is half-way through the extension to his factory or dwelling house, the Land Commission will step in and put a compulsory purchase order on the property. Whatever time he gets his planning permission, he should have the right to call on the Commission to make up its mind. If this would be a burden on the Land Commission, then extend the time in which it must answer a requisition of that sort. The owner should not all the time be under the threat of the Land Commission putting a compulsory purchase order on his property.
2.15 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary said "If he has got planning permission, let him get on with the job and do it." This is what the man will normally want to do, but he wants to know before he starts the job that he is free from some sort of Sword of Damocles dropping on his head from the Land Commission. He wants a clearance from the Land Commission, and he wants to know that he can do the job and enjoy the results of his work, without the Commission seizing the property from him.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The next Amendment is No. 43. Mr. Allason.

Mr. Allason: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I discussed Amendment No. 43, which deals with the three months question, without your permission at an earlier stage. I apologise for doing so, but it has in fact been discussed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Member had better move the Amendment formally.

Amendment proposed: In page 25, line 10, leave out from "may" to end of line.—[Mr. Allason.]

Amendment negatived.

Clause 25.—(EXEMPTION FROM STAMP DUTY.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 28, line 9, to leave out from "party" to the end of line 42.

This Amendment looks rather formidable in that it cuts out practically the whole Clause, but it makes a very nice simple Clause. If the Amendment is accepted, the Clause will read:
Stamp duty shall not be charged on any instrument to which the Commission is a party …

I am sure the Minister has his instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this Amendment and facilitate the workings of the Commission.

If the Amendment is not accepted, the Clause starts off by saying that the Commission shall be relieved of Stamp Duty on its documents. Then it makes a lot of exceptions and goes to the extent of charging duty on the counterpart when the Commission is let off on the original. There are many stupid provisions which will not bring the Chancellor a lot of money. Far better make a clean sweep of the thing and say that any instrument to which the Commission is a party shall be free from Stamp Duty. If the Commission has to pay Stamp Duty, it is only taking the money from one pocket and putting it in another.

The Clause relieves the Commission in most cases, but it is rather unfair if, when the function of the Commission is being carried out, just because the Commission is purchasing property, no Stamp Duty is payable, but when it is carrying out its functions and disposing of property the purchaser has to pay Stamp Duty. It is far better to wipe out Stamp Duty altogether, and simplify the Clause to the two lines as I suggest.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman, I know, has an allergy towards Stamp Duty. He does not, of course, expect me to accept this Amendment. He has given the reasons why the Land Commission is

exempt, but he has not given any reasons why anyone else should be exempt.

Mr. Rossi: This is not right. We have had great play made of the fact that we have here a generous Land Commission which will sell off crownholds and grant concessions worth goodness knows how much money, and here in this Clause the Commission is asking for five bobs on the counterparts. It is silly. I submit that there is a reasonable basis for this Amendment.
It is extremely petty to ask for these little bits of Stamp Duty. It may well be that the Minister has to placate the Treasury and that it does not want to see too much Stamp Duty lost. But when, with one breath, he says he is going to give concessions to people and then, with the other, that he is going to charge Stamp Duty in doing so, the whole thing becomes nonsense. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at this.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 27.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO BETTERMENT LEVY.)

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 189, in page 30, line 10 after "land", to insert:
(in relation to which there is in force at that time planning permission for the carrying out of material development): 
We have now reached that part of the Bill which deals with the betterment levy and I have a strange feeling that the Amendment will not find sympathy opposite. The object is to limit the circumstances in which the levy becomes chargeable and payable. One of the main motives is to make the problems of the Commission manageable.
There will be an avalanche of matters for the Commission to look at in deciding whether the levy is to be charged or not. Every transaction, every conveyance, will have to be sent to the district valuer and then to the Commission. The same goes for every seven-year lease. There will be a mountain of paper. Such a burden will bog the Commission down and it just will not work.

The Amendment would limit the charging of the levy, and therefore the matters which must be reported to the Commission, to those cases where planning permission already existed. I have a sneaking feeling that if the Amendment


were accepted it would play the devil with the Schedules and the calculations set out for the levy, which would be no grief to us but would be frightful for the Parliamentary draftsmen.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about the amount of work being given the Commission. We know that he wants it to work—he has said so many times. Here is a chance to allow it to work more efficiently.

Mr. Skeffington: As the hon. Gentleman may expect, it is doubtful whether the Amendment in this form would have any effect. The substantive provisions of the Clause, particularly subsection (2), would be unchanged. However, I do not rest my case for rejection of the Amendment on that argument.
The intention of the Amendment is clear—that the levy should be assessed only when planning permission exists. No levy would therefore be charged on what the valuer's office calls "hope value." It is well known that land will often fetch a far greater price than its existing use value in certain circumstances, and that is undoubtedly development value as we have defined it, even though there is no planning permission.
If the principle of the Amendment were accepted, the land owner would escape levy. Not only is that unfair and unjust, because the Bill is designed to recoup at least part of the betterment value for the community, but the subsequent purchaser would be unfairly treated, because he would have no base value and would therefore have to pay the levy on something on which he had not realised that amount of levy.
This is the sort of device, which we have resisted all the way through the Bill, by which the person who gets the betterment is able to pass it on to the purchaser. I have said time and again that no device can make it absolutely certain that in no circumstances is some part of the betterment paid by the purchaser, and the principle of the Bill will be defeated whenever that happens, but if the Amendment were accepted and the practice of purchase before planning permission became common, such owners would evade liability and the developer, whom we want to encourage, would be penalised, because he would not have the base value and would be paying on

something on which he was not getting benefit. That would be monstrously unjust and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The Parliamentary Secretary has dismissed the Amendment in a very cavalier fashion. It is a very important Amendment and it goes to the whole root of Part III of the Bill, as is intended. In Committee, we discussed what I would call the de minimis Amendment to relieve any transaction of less than £5,000. This Amendment is on the same lines in that it would relieve most dwelling houses, most developed plots, from levy. We were told earlier that dwelling houses would probably not have much development value and that what the betterment levy is intended to achieve is to take some of the profit out of the development of land.
The Prime Minister said that his interpretation of the Bill was that it nationalised urban land, that the Bill was intended to put a levy on land which was ripe for development, land on which there was some permission to develop. If the Amendment were accepted, it would let the normal dwelling house out of the levy and out of the whole machinery of Part III. It would have, as it were, the same effect as fixing some figure at which transaction would be relieved from the effect of Part III.
That is what we should like to do, but apart from that expediency aspect, the Amendment implements the principle of payment for planning permission. On many occasions we on this side of the House have said that that would be fair, that where the value of property had been increased by planning permission being granted, the owner should make some payment, not the 40 per cent. which is discussed as the levy in the Bill, but some simple payment in respect of planning permission.
For example, if an owner of a plot of land intends to sell, if he gets planning permission he sells the land with planning permission and gets an enhanced value for that and pays the levy. If he decides to sell it without planning permission, he does not get that enhanced value and there would be little or no levy with which to charge him. We should then be avoiding the notification and the assessment of innumerable transactions, on which there would be very little levy


payable, but, with this Amendment, we should catch those on which levy ought to be assessed. It is a great simplification of Part III and that is why we brought it in at a very early stage.
2.30 a.m.
It is a recognition and a submission to the desire in the Bill to place a levy on development value, but it places it where it really belongs and where it will be effective. With the condition that the levy will not bite unless there is planning permission. Unless the vendor of property in case (a), or the landlord in case (b) or developer in case (c) is making the money out of selling the advantage that he has got out of planning permission, he should not be charged the levy. If he is making the money through selling his planning permission then the levy should be applied.

Mr. Allason: The Parliamentary Secretary said that he wanted to ensure that the vendor pays the levy. He is taking a rather innocent view if he believes that, simply because the vendor actually signs the cheque to the Land Commission, the money comes out of his pocket and not out of the pocket of the purchaser. He may have noticed that petrol has risen in price fairly recently, shortly after 20th July. Who does he think pays the tax on petrol? Is it the motorist or the garage? He likes to delude himself that because petrol has gone up it is still the garage which is paying the tax and therefore no one need worry.
We know that every tax tends to put up prices and he is deluding himself if he thinks that the vendor will pay the levy and that this is not going to make the slightest difference to the purchaser. It is because of this purist attitude that he has got himself into the position of making the Bill so desperately complicated in an attempt to say that it must always be the vendor who pays. I do not see that he needs to be such a purist about it. So long as someone pays the levy this is still a satisfactory situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), has said that we support a levy on betterment, but for goodness sake, make it simpler than this. This Bill has become so darned complicated that it will never be understood by anyone. Here we are offering a system which makes things a good deal simpler, and at once the Parliamentary Secretary

turns round and on purist grounds says that it has to be paid for by a particular person, rejecting our suggestion. I regret this.

Mr. Eyre: The most valid criticism of the Land Commission's proposals is that they have been conceived with overwhelming ambition. This Amendment is aimed at bringing that ambition within due bounds. The wide ranging purpose of the Land Commission to collect the levy, to restrict and interfere, will result in the machine being overloaded, and this will be at Government and professional level. The number of professionals who will be able to understand and operate this system will be very few. In the administration of this complicated machine, there is no doubt that the Government will require the services of a great new army of valuers. We have said this repeatedly to the Minister. The result will be that the system that the Government are trying to set up will be broken by this overloading.
For that reason—and from my own point of view I resent very much the talk of filibustering which I have heard from the benches opposite—we advise the Minister strongly to consider this kind of Amendment with the aim of limiting the scope of his activities. Otherwise, we feel strongly that he and his Commission and the system will be seriously discredited.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 30, line 35, leave out from "under" to second "of" in line 36 and insert:
section (Levy in Case F)".

—[Air. Willey.)

Clause 28.—(RATE OF LEVY.)

Mr. Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 190, in page 31, fine 11, after "rate" to insert:
(not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the net development value or other amount upon which the levy is chargeable)".
One of the many disadvantages of the Bill is that it applies to dwelling houses, shops, offices, factories and, in fact, universities. We might liken it, therefore, to an umbrella. Not only does it take in all types of property and development, but ipso facto it takes in all sorts of types of people. These people are all hit by the levy, whether they be millionaires or small owner-occupiers.


from people with a tremendous amount of money, who are few and far between nowadays, to those who have very little cash and a lot of family responsibilities.
We on this side take the view that the levy is another form of taxation. Generally speaking, taxation, particularly when it affects the family man, is graduated. There is no graduation in the levy. We ask the House to accept the Amendment. We seek to keep the levy, or the tax as I prefer to call it, at a reasonable level, within the context of what I consider to be an unreasoned and a thoroughly unreasonable Bill.
What are the Government afraid of? Why are they being specific about the amount of levy? We had long discussions on the subject in Committee but we did not get a satisfactory answer. It is true that another object of the Amendment is to try to get the Government to show their hand, because when the Bill becomes law it will be possible to use the levy as a deliberate means of disincentive.
The Minister estimated that the levy would give a gross yield of £80 million per annum if it was set at 40 per cent. We have since learned that this is a gross, and not a net, figure. The White Paper stated that it was proposed that the levy should start at 40 per cent. If we assume that a 40 per cent. levy will yield £80 million gross per annum, what is the outgoing which will compensate or balance this figure? If the levy goes up, as the White Paper promises, it will progressively go to 45 per cent., to 50 per cent., and possibly even higher. Will the yield be commensurate with this higher rate? As the Commission gets going and grows more ramifications, I do not think this will apply.
The White Paper goes on to say:
The question of increasing the rate further will be examined as acquisitions by the Commission, and thus their ability to provide for land development, increase.
Therefore, as I see it, as the Land Commission's activities of compulsory acquisition of land increase, the levy must become more and more confiscatory in nature.
That is quite different from, and quite against, our political philosophy on this side of the House, and that is yet another reason why we aim to fix the levy at the

limit proposed in the Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, when we get back we shall repeal this Measure, and we shall wind up the Land Commission. We do not like very much about the Bill, but, as I said before, what we seek to do by the Amendment is to keep the levy at a reasonable level. Somebody said once—I have no idea who it was—that there should be no taxation without demonstration. This is so; this is a form of taxation; we seek to put a limit on it. We have put our terms in the Amendment, and we put our terms to the House.

Mr. Willey: It is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman did not expect the Government to accept this Amendment. He complained that the Government did not disclose their hand. Of course they have, as he later went on to show. In the White Paper we said quite explicitly what our intentions are about the rate of levy. The hon. Gentleman has shown, apparently, the intentions of his hon. Friends. They are that the levy shall run well below the Capital Gains and Corporation Tax. In other words, if there is discrimination, it is in favour of land, as against other things; development value is to be treated differently from other capital gains.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister says that if we fix it at 25 per cent. it must be less than Capital Gains Tax. When this Bill comes into operation as an Act there will be a clear distinction of that part of the value of property on which capital gains will be charged and that part on which the levy will be charged. As I understand it, Capital Gains Tax will be charged on the increase in capital use value, the levy will be charged starting with the base of the current use value so as to make it the base value as described in the Schedules to the Bill. But these are two entirely different sections of the value of the property, and why should not the levy be at a different rate from the Capital Gains Tax?
The point about the levy, of course, is that it is a levy. It is not related to a person's income as Income Tax is, and Capital Gains Tax is a form of income tax. Here the unfortunate victim of this has to pay whatever his means may be. We are told he will have to pay 40 per cent. on whatever net development value


there is on disposal or development of the property.
2.45 a.m.
We wish to limit it to 25 per cent. I do not see what Capital Gains Tax has to do with it except that it is a different form of tax altogether and a much fairer form. This is the unfair form of charging a fixed figure on a person whatever his means to pay, and that alone would be justification for restricting it to a certain figure.
If the Bill is passed, it will be an open cheque to the Government to charge whatever levy they choose. The rate of levy is not mentioned in the Bill. The Minister mentioned that it is intended to be 40 per cent., but goodness knows what the intention may be by the time it comes to fixing that figure. The intentions of the present Government change so rapidly from day to day and from night to night. Before we know where we are, the levy may be 100 per cent. It can be under the Bill. In fact, it can be more than 100 per cent. It can be worked out on the Schedules as more than the net development value that a man has obtained out of a transaction over property. On this basis, it is fair and reasonable that there should be a figure in the Bill limiting the amount of the levy.
I should have thought that that was the only reasonable thing to do when a Bill of this sort was brought before the House with no statement of what it means to the individual from the money point of view and no statement about how much will be taken from the individual. When we seek to put a figure in, there is no question of the Government saying "You have limited it at too low a figure." The suggestion is just rejected. They do not say "All right. We will give an undertaking not to charge more than such-and-such a percentage levy."
This is one of the most open cheques that Parliament has ever been asked to give a Government. We are not even asked to do this in the Finance Bill. There we are told the rates of tax. From time to time we give a Minister power to increase them by Order, but this is exceptional. Normally we know in the Finance Bill exactly the rate of tax that is intended. But here we are not given

a clue beyond a statement by the Minister that it is his intention that the tax shall start at 40 per cent. and then go to 45 per cent., the bait being that it will first be 40 per cent. in order to encourage people to bring land forward early in case they are charged a higher rate in future. Our Amendment to limit it to a certain percentage at least makes sense out of the legislation before the House.

Mr. Farr: I strongly support what my hon. Friends have said. The rate of levy is the axis upon which the Land Commission, if it ever gets going, will revolve.
It makes nonsense of Parliament's intention to simplify its procedure so that ordinary people can understand it when in a Bill like this we have a Clause dealing with the rate of levy and when we read it through we find that the rate is not mentioned. It makes the proceedings rather ludicrous. It is all very well for the Minister to indicate in a rather confidential manner that we can expect a rate of levy on the lines laid down in the White Paper. White Papers are not sacrosanct. The National Plan is a White Paper, and it is in ribbons.
I strongly support my hon. Friends. If we are to get anywhere, let us have something simple put in the Bill. Perhaps 25 per cent. is rather lower than what the Government have in mind, but let us have a maximum figure in the Bill so that there will be some firm ground for developers and sellers of land to walk upon rather than this awful quagmire for them to plough through.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 191, in page 31, line 15, to leave out from "date" to "that" in line 16 and to insert:
on which the person liable to pay the levy entered into an enforceable contract to do or to ensure the occurrence of".

The Amendment is proposed to Clause 28 which provides that the rate of levy shall be ordered by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury. The Clause also prescribes the point of time in any transaction between private citizens at which that transaction is caught by the levy. The Amendment accepts that the Minister may by order vary the levy from time to time. It is directed to altering the date when it is suggested that a transaction is caught by the levy.

As matters stand, it the Clause remained unamended and if one took the example of a sale of land between parties, the date of the conveyance or the actual transfer of the land would be the point of time at which that transaction would be caught, and the rate of levy in force on that date would be the rate applicable to the transaction. Similarly, with a lease, it is the date on which the lease is signed. In the case of a builder, under a building contract, it is the date on which he starts his development.

We suggest that it is a matter of far greater importance to private citizens that the date on which the levy be fixed is the date on which they strike their bargain. For the sale of land, we suggest that it is the date on which they sign their contract for the sale, and not the date on which the final legal formalities are tied up, because it is the date on which the contract is signed that both parties want to know what their respective financial obligations are. One can envisage a situation where a contract for the sale of land or for the granting of a lease is signed on a date when the levy is fixed at a certain percentage, and then, when the final formal completion comes, the rate is changed. That could create great difficulties for the parties who have already struck their bargain.

The situation is even more serious for a building developer, who may enter into a building contract months and, in some cases, years before he is able to commence his development. One knows that where a building developer goes into a development scheme, he has to cost the whole development very carefully and often very competitively, and he cannot afford to have an unknown factor in the shape of a levy that may be quite different when he begins his development. It is something which he ought to know when he signs his contract.

That is essentially the object of the Amendment. We put it forward on the basis that it is the avowed intention, or one of the avowed intentions, of the Government in introducing this Bill to bring forward a steady supply of land. This can be done only if there is certainty about the financial implications of what is involved in a dealing in land. This certainty must be fixed at the date of the contract, otherwise we will have very much the kind of situation with which

marriage registrars have to contend with before Budget day. There is a sudden rush of marriages at a certain time of the year to get the maximum Income Tax concession, and then there is a gap in the statistics. This kind of thing is bound to happen with land if the Clause is not amended.

If the levy is to be fixed annually with the Budget, there will be a great flurry of contracts being signed round about the new year, and then there will be a gap, a standstill, a wait and see period, while everybody concerned tries to discover whether the levy is to go up, and if it goes up in April there will be a further standstill while people get over the shock, just as the sale of cigarettes falls off when the tax goes up after Budget day.

This stop-go, stop-go, is not what the Government want, or what they say they do not want, with regard to land. They want a steady supply of land coming on to the market for development so that they can solve the difficult housing problem. This is one of the things which the Commission is supposed to do. It will not be able to do it if there is uncertainty, and I ask the Minister seriously to consider the Amendment.

We are not trying to affect his discretion in having the rate altered by Order. We are not putting any limit on what the rate should be. All that we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to do is to have regard to the bargain being struck between the parties, the private citizens concerned, and to put them in the position of knowing exactly what their financial obligations are at the time when the bargain is being struck, and not at some later date when the legal formalities and red tape are being tied up and attended to.

Mr. Willey: I have two technical reasons for not accepting the Amendment. The words
to ensure the occurrence of
would not have the effect of applying to Case D. I say that because in any case I would not be prepared to accept the Amendment. It would—and this arises from what the hon. Gentleman said—introduce an element which could be the opportunity for evasion.
The hon. Gentleman has rested his case on the fact that we are concerned with


the possibility of a change in the levy. If that be so, if we accepted the Amendment the possibility of evasion would be far greater.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that this is a form of retrospective legislation. If the levy rate is changed after a man has signed an enforceable contract he can do nothing about it. He has entered into a contract to buy or sell land at a certain price, assuming that the levy was at such-and-such a rate. He cannot then alter his contract unless, in bringing in the Order introducing the new rate, the Minister allows a breach of contract in order to adjust the matter. It is a form of retrospective legislation applying a new rate to a contract which cannot be altered by the parties to it.
I thought that when we brought this matter to the attention of the Minister, even if the Amendment was not worded correctly, he would say, "I see the unfairness of this as it stands, and I will try to introduce the correct wording". It is grossly unfair to the parties to an enforceable contract that the circumstances under which they entered into that contract should be changed by law without their being able to change the terms of the contract. I ask the Minister to think about this again.

Mr. Eyre: The Minister will remember that I referred to him two letters in respect of companies which had entered into binding contracts to sell property and where the Minister had subsequently confirmed that in both cases, although there was a delay in completion for very good reasons, the levy would be collected. The Minister will recall that again in both cases the companies had entered into these binding contracts before the publication of the White Paper, and in one case even before the 1964 General Election. On the facts of these two cases the situation is extremely unfair, because taxation will now be levied by retrospective legislation. This will be deeply resented. It is unfair. These are examples of inequity, and I press the Minister to reconsider this matter and to substitute the date of contract for the relevant date as provided in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 29.—(LEVY IN CASE A.)

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 31, line 43, to leave out from "such" to "as" in line 44 and to insert:
other provisions of the relevant Schedules".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With this Amendment I think it will be convenient to discuss also Amendments Nos. 47, 49, 51, 52, 98, 99, 130, 132, 138, 140, 146, 148, 149, 158, 160 and 161.

Mr. Skeffington: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are all purely drafting Amendments. They substitute the words "the relevant Schedules" and these, if the House is good enough to give us the Schedules, will cover that point as well as one or two cases where there is an inaccurate reference. This will be greatly to the convenience of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30.—(LEVY IN CASE B.)

Amendment made: In page 32, line 40, leave out from "such" to "as" in line 41 and insert:
other provisions of the relevant Schedules".—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 31.—(LEVY IN CASE C.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 33, line 19, after "shall" to insert:
subject to subsection (4) of this section)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 50.

Mr. Willey: I think that is convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This meets the case where, under the original scheme, a separate assessment is made in respect of every assessable interest in the land comprised within the project of material development. It enables the Commission to enter into an agreement with the developing, owner to treat two or more assessable interests as being merged immediately before the relevant date. They could then be treated as one and this could save a good deal of work. This is not to the prejudice of anyone, because it depends upon agreement.

Mr. Graham Page: We think that this is very satisfactory. I hope that particularly the last words of the Minister got into the OFFICIAL REPORT—that this depends upon agreement. There is no compulsion: this depends upon agreement between the development Commission and the developer.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 30, leave out from "such" to "as" in line 31 and insert "other provisions of the relevant Schedules".

In line 39, at end insert:
(4) For the purpose of assessing levy in respect of two or more assessable interests by virtue of which a person is the developing owner in relation to the relevant project, the Commission and the developing owner may enter into an agreement whereby those interests shall be treated as if they had merged into one interest immediately before the relevant date, and the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section and of the relevant Schedules shall apply subject to such modifications as the agreement may provide in that behalf.—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 33.—(LEVY IN CASE D.)

Amendment made: In page 36, line 27, leave out from 'such' to end of line and insert:
'other provisions of the relevant Schedules'.

—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 34.—(LEVY IN CASE E.)

Amendment made: In page 37, line 27, leave out from 'such' to end of line and insert:
'other provisions of the relevant Schedules.'

—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 35.—(LEVY IN CASE F.)

Amendment made: In page 38, line 39, leave out Clause 35.—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 36.—(LIABILITY TO PAY LEVY.)

Amendment made: In page 40, line 11, leave out subsection (7).

—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 38.—(NOTIFICATION IN CASE C.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 41, line 7, leave out from 'who' to end of line.
Perhaps it would be convenient for this Amendment to be discussed together with Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.
These are drafting Amendments. We accepted an Amendment from the Opposition

in Committee and these are drafting upon their Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I was pleased to allow through the series of Amendments with which we have just been dealing, because I had marked them as drafting Amendments. But this one is an alteration of an Amendment proposed by the Opposition in Committee and accepted by the Government. The Government have "mucked about" with our wording and I am not sure why. Perhaps the Minister could make it clear.

Mr. Willey: This is purely on the narrow point that the Amendment makes it clear that the Clause is concerned with the projects started and not with the ownership of the land on or after the appointed day.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 12, after 'begin' insert
'on or after the first appointed day'.

In line 14 at end insert
'on or after that day.'—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Willey: Mr. Willey I beg to: move Amendment No. 58, in page 41, line 18, after "section" insert "(a)".

I suggest that it might be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.

This also arises out of an Amendment in Committee and upon the assurance that I gave. This is the notice of intention to start a project having to be made within six weeks. I said that this was really a case of whether or not there was planning permission. If there was planning permission there was no ground for rejection. I accepted the point of view expressed by the Opposition and the Amendment gives effect to that undertaking.

Mr. Rossi: My hon. Friends and I are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for implementing the undertaking he gave in Committee. Our anxiety was to see that the developer was given as much flexibility as possible and that he should not be required to give at least six weeks' notice before he began his development. Six weeks appeared to us to be more a period of administrative convenience than anything else, particularly since getting the development


built and removing all possible red tape from the developer is the important consideration. We are glad that the Government have accepted our idea.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, Amendment No. 192, in page 41, line. 19, to leave out "twelve months" and to insert "three years".
This is concerned with precisely the same point as the six weeks' notice, with which we were dealing in the last Amendment, except that here we wish to extend it at the other end of the time scale. The object is again one of flexibility and we ask that a developer be allowed to give up to three years' notice of his intention to development.
Many large developments are in the nature and scale of operations which need very long-term planning indeed and we believe that it should be open to a developer to get his plans in order at the earliest possible opportunity; and three years is not an unusually long period in the circumstances of very large-scale developments.

Mr. Skeffington: I regret that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) moved the Amendment so briefly, although I will not take long to explain why I must resist it. Certain discussions I have had with developers have led me to believe that there is no excessive enthusiasm for the proposal. The Government take the view that the Amendment is unnecessary and would probably hinder the work of the Commission.
It is unlikely in many cases that anybody would know, three years before a project was started, what all its details would be. If they were known, the Commission would not want to begin assessing the levy based on facts which might completely change by the time the project came to fruition, or was even started, There would be no advantage to the Commission in doing so because the land values involved in such a project might completely change in the intervening three years.
3.15 a.m.
Furthermore, apart from this consideration, a notice given under this provision might have to be withdrawn and a fresh one substituted because of changed circumstances during such a period. We

have considered this matter carefully and while not being unsympathetic to the proposal, because this is not a point of doctrine, we consider that because of the difficulties I have mentioned, as well as other practical difficulties, the period in the provision as drafted is reasonable and there would be no great advantage to a developer or the Commission in accepting the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 41, line 19, leave out "or less than six weeks".

In line 20, at end insert:
and
(b) shall not have effect if it is served less than six weeks before that date, unless planning permission authorising the carrying out of the whole of the project is in force at the time when the notice is served".—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 42.—(NOTIFICATION IN CASE F.)

Amendment made: In page 44, line 18, leave out "designated by the regulations" and insert
to which the regulations apply".—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 44.—(NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LEVY.)

Amendments made: In page 45, line 33, leave out
subject to the next following subsection".

In line 37, leave out "subsections (1) to (6) of".

In line 44, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Farr: I beg to move Amendment No. 193, in page 46, line 7, at the end to insert:
(4) A person who would be liable to pay the levy as a result of a chargeable act or event (if any levy were so payable) may by requisition in writing to the Commission require the Commission to serve upon him within three months of the service of that requisition upon the Commission either a notice of assessment of levy or a certificate that no levy is payable as a result of that chargeable act or event.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, with this Amendment, Amendment No. 194, in page 46, line 11, at end add:
or more than three months after receipt by the Commission of a requisition under the last preceding subsection (whichever shall be the earlier date)".

Mr. Farr: Clause 44 gives the Land Commission a 6-year period in which to make up its mind whether a notice of assessment of levy shall be served. For reasons which I shall briefly outline, we on this side consider that in certain essential instances that period is far too long if certain functions in our life are to continue to operate, regardless of the number of annual chargeable events that are likely to arise.
It is nothing less than disgraceful that 2,000 or 3,000 civil servants will not be able to produce a decision before six years have elapsed. At the last General Election, and the one before that, we heard a lot about the modernisation of Britain and the automation of Britain in the 'seventies with the Socialists, but with all this technological advance cannot this new Land Commission produce a decision more quickly? They produce an answer with a very small staff in Ruritania.
Has the Minister given any thought at all to trying to streamline the mechanism of the Commission? How many computers does he think the Commission will have and operate—or will it still rely on the paper and indiarubber stage. If it does that, I am surprised that it will not need longer than six years to get an assessment. The whole affair is rather a joke, because long before the 6-year period has elapsed a Conservative Government will have returned to office and will have swept away the whole cobwebby structure.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not convinced that he should do something to speed up the mechanism a bit, I will give him two specific cases where his insistence on maintaining the 6-year waiting period, so to speak, could cause very serious inconvenience to the life of the community.
First, there is the developer who is building and selling new houses, which are so badly needed. He has to know what the land has cost him, and he cannot know that unless a fairly rapid notice of assessment has been made. Later, we will come to a Clause which compels a developer to start operations on some land he has acquired for development within a 2-year period, otherwise he runs the risk of having to pay a double charge under Cases A and B or C on the land

he has acquired for that purpose. How can he be expected to carry out operations within a 2-year period when he probably has no assessment given to him and has no idea what to charge those who want to buy the land on which he has built a house?
Another thing which affects everyone in the country is the difficult, if not impossible, task the solicitor will have to wind up the estate of a deceased person. How can he conclude all the already complicated negotiations with the Estate Duty Office if he has to wait for six years to get an answer from this new streamlined Land Commission? Only last week I came across the case of a person in my constituency who about 10 days ago lost her husband. She is about to sell a couple of acres of land and a house on which a certain amount of development is to take place. She may or may not escape the web of this Measure when it becomes an Act. There will be frequent cases where widows wish to move because their husbands have recently died. Their movements will be completely held up while awaiting a decision on the assessment for levy by the Commission.
I am not sure why the Minister has tabled an Amendment to remove subsection (6) of this Clause. That subsection made a requirement to the Commission to furnish an assessment in the case of a deceased owner within three years. It may be that we have already discussed this point under the complicated Clauses 3, 4 and 5 earlier today. If we did, I hope this will serve as an illustration. Although I was present for the whole of the afternoon, I was not aware that this particular point had been discussed. That gives some idea of how complicated these Clauses are.

Mr. Willey: The short answer about computers is that we shall have one. I think it better to have one than, as the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) suggested, a mass of them.
I recognise the influential support this Amendment has; but, as a result of the disclosure I have made, the Amendment is not necessary. It is unnecessary because in the vast majority of cases within a few months of being notified of a chargeable act or event, the Commission can serve a notice. The suggestion about six years is quite unwarranted. We are


concerned here with the normal case. In normal house sales there will be no question of levy or further particulars.
The first ground on which I reject the Amendment is that it is unnecessary. Secondly, it would be unhelpful and adverse to the working of the arrangements because it would upset the procedure. Obviously, in some cases there will be complex and difficult questions to resolve by negotiations. It would be unhelpful to have this provision because no one would wish those negotiations to be interrupted. Another case would be where the Commission was waiting information. Again, this would upset the efficiency of these arrangements. The best thing is to leave the arrangements efficient and flexible. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter when the Commission is operating, he will have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Graham Page: This provision has brought more ridicule on the Bill than any other provision. The Commission has the power—it may be that the Commission will not use it—under the Bill to delay an assessment for a matter of six years. It is quite contrary to all other provisions of this sort relating to Estate Duty and Income Tax. The citizen can ask for a clearance: he can apply to the Inland Revenue or the Estate Duty Office for a clearance to say that he no longer owes any tax or Estate Duty, and he is given that clearance within a reasonable time.
If the period which we have put in the Amendment is too short, it can be lengthened, but some time should be given to the citizen to get a clearance to know whether he owes the money. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is unnecessary and that the Commission will normally assess within a reasonable time. One expects that from the Commission. But there may be occasions—and undoubtedly there will be occasions, where there are some complications—on which the machinery gets bogged down in the Commission's office and the unfortunate levy payer has to wait for the assessment.
Earlier this afternoon we discussed an Amendment whereby the levy payer has to pay levy even though he has relief due to him which has not been assessed. This is the sort of case in which he ought to

be able to ask for clearance. If he has put the money into the Commission's pocket when he is entitled to relief from that money, it is preposterous that the Commission should be able to delay it for any length of time. This has brought complete ridicule on the whole machinery of the Land Commission. Surely the Minister can give us some indication that the Commission will be obliged to act in the same way as the normal tax collector and the normal Estate Duty office and give a clearance if the citizen requires it.

Mr. Willey: I know that it is getting late but the hon. Member has apparently rested his case on the provision made in respect of Income Tax. There is no provision for a clearance of Income Tax.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 46, line 28, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 45.—(CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 195, in page 46, line 36, at the end to insert:
(b) show the amounts of the several factors used in the computation of the levy and the calculation of the levy therefrom.

This Clause provides for a notice of assessment of levy. The Commission is obliged to serve on the prospective levy payer a notice of how the levy is assessed. As the Clause stands, all that has to be indicated in the notice is the chargeable act or event to which it relates. This is what the levy payer has told the Commission, and now the Commission is merely obliged to state the same thing back to the levy payer. Then it must specify the principal amount of the levy, and finally it must specify a date on which the levy is charged.

No information is given to the man from whom the money is demanded as to how the principal amount of the levy is calculated. Yet within a period of two months, if he wishes to contest the levy charged upon him he has to give notice. That comes under Clause 46. But how is he going to be able to put up a reasonable claim that the levy is wrongly calculated if he does not know the factors upon which the calculation is based?

3.30 a.m.

It is not a matter of just one or two factors. In Committee I gave some equations. The process that one has to undergo to discover what the levy is, is first to discover current use value. Current use value is existing use value plus planning permission for material development. Having got current use value, one has to translate that into base value. Base value is eleven-tenths current use value plus severance depreciation levy. Another equation is base value equals the market value at the time of the last relevant disposition.

All these figures have to be discovered by the Land Commission and put into its calculations. Having got base value, one has to compare it with market value, and market value is the purchase price plus the supplementary provisions which are to be found in the depths of one Schedule. Having got as far as market value, one has to find net development value. That is market value minus base value plus expenditure on improvements and ancillary rights. Eventually one gets the betterment levy by saying that it is four times the net development value over 10. All that the levy payer is going to be told is the last figure—the betterment levy. There will be just one figure in the notice—"You are to pay £X". He will not know from that how the figures are calculated.

It would surely save a lot of administrative time if he were given that information on the notice when it went out. It must be available to the Commission. The Commission will have worked the figures out. Why not tell the levy payer exactly how the levy is calculated? If this is not done, 99 people out of 100 will ask, "How is this figure calculated?" They will write to the Commission and demand to know. That will increase the administrative work of the Commission. There may be those who are too nervous to do that, thinking that they may let themselves in for more levy if they question the figure on the notice. It is grossly unfair that they should not be told how this is calculated and be given an opportunity to question it on a notice of objection.

We discussed this earlier in Committee. The Minister said that he would look at the point again. But nothing has

appeared in his name on the Amendment Paper. Whether he proposes to do anything about it by regulation I do not know, but certainly something must be done about it. These notices cannot be sent out to the person who is called upon to pay the money, with just one figure in them and a demand—"Pay this sum".

This is a new form of demand. Nobody will read through the Schedules to the Bill to find out how the amount ought to be calculated. People will rely on the Commission. But they will want to know whether the Commission has taken the right figures—for example, the right purchase price and the right amount for improvements. Suppose that the Commission, having been informed of certain improvements which have been done to the property—and the expenditure on improvements is one thing which has to be taken into account in discovering the betterment levy—decides, "These were not really improvements; we will cut the amount down by 50 per cent." The levy payer will want to know how that comes into the calculations.

This is one of the most important Amendments we have considered today. To the ordinary individual who will be charged the levy, it is a new form of taxation. It is something which people will not understand when it is first charged and it should be explained fully to them. Otherwise they will pester the Commission, and if there is any question of disorganisation of the machinery of the Commission there will certainly be disorganisation on this if the citizen is not told clearly how the amount of his levy was worked out.

Mr. Skeffington: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman in showing again that once one has grasped the simple principle of the formula these things are not so difficult to work out. He has given a graphic demonstration of that, as he did in Standing Committee. I hope that we have given some useful instruction from time to time and that, in the clash of argument, we have arrived at an understanding of the principle, which is not quite so complicated as has been suggested, although I admit that it is not absolutely simple.
There are several points about the Amendment and I hope that, when I


have explained them, the hon. Gentleman will not feel the need to press it. In Committee, the Government gave an undertaking that the notice would set out the main figures used in the computation, including base value, improvements, market value and others of that kind. The levy payer will be able to query any of these by correspondence. It is likely that, in the overwhelming number of cases, the figures will be agreed by the Commission and the levy payer before notice of assessment is served. In any case, the notice will contain those factors, so the position is not as difficult as the hon. Gentleman has made out.

The Amendment uses the phrase "the several factors". That is a term of art. I do not know what the legal significance is. We have not been able to find out. It may well be that, in order to ensure that a notice is not challenged, the Commission would, if the Amendment were accepted, have to provide in some cases two or three pages of calculations which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, would be unnecessary.

For example, there is the position of a developer who has assembled over the years perhaps 50 or 60 parcels of land. The value would be the aggregate on all of them. If the Amendment were carried, it is likely that each one of the calculations for each parcel of land would have to be shown separately on the notice. I think that would be an unreasonable requirement.

Since I have specified that the main figures will be on the notice, that the figures are likely to be agreed between the levy payer and the Commission before the notice is served and that the levy payer can query any of them by correspondence, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied. We would not be prepared to fetter the Commission with a phrase like "the several factors", which would have the consequences I have outlined. I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman would want and I hope that he will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman said that these points would be given in the notice. Why not put that in the Bill, or in regulations? At least that would give some assurance that the Commission,

which will be heavily overworked and which will no doubt cut out all these frills, to put it that way, and merely abide by what it is told to do, will do what is wanted. I fear that unless the Commission is told in that way, it will not give these figures.
The hon. Gentleman will not be the Chief Commissioner—I do not know and perhaps he will be and perhaps that is why he is giving us all these assurances and undertakings. But at some time there will be somebody at the Land Commission and it will not be someone speaking at the Dispatch Box tonight and he will say "I am not bound by what Ministers say and I shall run the Commission as I choose, excepting only that I will run it according to the law. if I am bound to do something, I shall, but if to do extra things I have to engage extra staff, I shall not do them". We want the Commission by law to have to give these figures.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unreasonable, for if an undertaking or assurance is given in the House, it can be relied on. In any case, one has to observe a balance between how much is put into a Bill and how much left out. There have already been complaints that the Bill is too long and now hon. Gentlemen opposite want to make it longer.
There is the other disadvantage, which I have pointed out before, that if one is too specific in the way which the hon. Gentleman requires the notice to be, in certain circumstances that may preclude the Commission from giving the sort of information which it might feel could be given, but which it might not be empowered to give. Having considered this matter, we think that the balance of advantage is with the Clause as now drafted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
We have done a very good stint and worked very hard. We have to keep our intelligence bright for the further consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has made a most agreeable proposal, but I do not want to be bound to any time which we might spend tomorrow. There


is still a great deal left to be done and many hours to spend on the Bill and I do not know whether we can get it through tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

MANAGEMENT TRAINING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

3.44 a.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Earlier this week we debated at some length the short-term economic problems of the country. I hope that we shall not therefore lose sight of the longer-term problems and the solutions to them, not least the subject about which I wish to talk tonight, the quality of management in British industry and the degree of managerial expertise. We must consider what we can do to improve the quality of British management in the immediate and middle future.
Perhaps I might define a little more closely what exactly it is with which I am dealing tonight. It can be seen clearly enough from the statement in the National Institute Economic Review this year that British prices appear to be higher and initially quoted prices higher still than those of our competitors. Clearly, this is not the way to increase our export markets.
Similarly, an article in the Journal of Management Studies earlier this year suggests that estimated costs should be used only as a reference point in determining selling prices. This is not standard practice in British industry. The lesson is a hard one to learn and at the moment we are all too often trying to sell in the markets of tomorrow on the basis of data of the past. I suggest that production policies should be based on the estimates of future movements of the market, not upon the past, and that only thus can possible future cost levels be determined.
In such techniques we have 30 or 40 years backlog to make up on many of our competitors. The only advantage that we derive from this is that we have thereby gained a chance to develop independently,

for instance, of the techniques developed in the United States. We have a chance to develop independently certain basic techniques and to make new advances because we are untrammelled by the past. One might contrast here the fixed assets of British industry, some of which are left-overs from the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. It is not so easy for us to change them.
In terms of the training of managers of the future in such techniques, we have been making provision, in recent years. At long last we have two major business schools, the Manchester Business School, opened in 1965, and the London Business School, which is taking its first student this year. The Foundation for Management Education and the University Grants Committee, to some degree, concentrate their money on these two institutions, the Foundation deriving its money from private industry. One might take leave to doubt whether this excessive concentration of funds is wholly desirable. We must beware of starving other institutions of higher education.
In London we have a high-brow course, grounded in the basic academic disciplines, and Manchester is not radically dissimilar. One might hope that when these two schools are running at full capacity they will be producing about 400 top managers per year. The National Economic Development Council calculates that we need about 20,000 managers per year. Clearly many, or most, must come from other areas of the educational system.
There is a multiplicity of provision already in other areas of the higher educational sphere. Much here depends upon what one counts as a management course, but these are 10 universities of the traditional sort running courses in management education and seven former colleges of advanced technology running courses in management education. There are three universities in Scotland too. Then we have the technical colleges, where the number taking the Diploma in Management Studies has risen startlingly from 1,153 in 1961–62 to over 3,200 in 1964–65. They teach too, for the Higher National Certificate and Diploma in Business Studies and for C.N.A.A. degrees in management studies.
In one specific area—and it is perhaps the most vital because this is where we have allowed ourselves to fall furthest behind our competitors—namely, marketing, we are still further behind than we are in management studies in general. How far we have allowed ourselves to fall behind even our European competitors, let alone the United States, can be seen from the fact that the first chair of marketing in Denmark was established in 1925. We are only now establishing our first chair in marketing.
The importance here seems to be that too much attention has been, and is, focused on marginal improvements in the fact Dry, when drastic alterations could be made to improve marketing. Half the cost of a product is often tied up with marketing, design, pricing, packaging, advertising, etc., rather than with purely production costs. It is clear enough from this how important the study of marketing techniques is if we are to sell our products, not only at home, but abroad.
There are now four chairs, at London, Lancaster and two at Manchester. In these schools postgraduate and undergraduate courses are taught, and undergraduate courses are also available at some technical colleges. For the diploma in marketing taught in the technical colleges, the registered number of students jumped from 600 in 1961 to 2,000 in 1966.
My major point is that there is a critical shortage of staff at all levels in the universities, the former colleges of advanced technology and the technical colleges. In this context, I should like to discuss first the sponsorship offered by the Board of Trade to the National Marketing Council, which sent people to Harvard on a course beginning on 5th July this year.
Fifty top-level executives went to the Harvard course. The course was divided in two, with six weeks at Harvard and four weeks on a tour of the United States visiting industrial and other establishments. The cost was about £1,000 per head, of which the Board of Trade provided about £500 per head. That is to say, the course cost us something like £50,000 of foreign exchange, of which £25,000 came from the pockets of the taxpayer.
I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who, I hope, will be able to give me an answer tonight, whether, when funds are so short in this sector, that was the wisest way to spend them. My hon. Friend may well say that the course was essential to train British executives to compete in the American export market and that this was specifically American experience. If that is my hon. Friend's reply, I hope that he will bear in mind what the National Marketing Council itself said. It stated at the time:
While many of the cases have American settings, they form problems of universal interest and application. However, there are also many carefully selected cases pertaining to marketing in other areas, especially with regard to Britain, Europe and the Common Market.
Thus the course was not specifically aimed at teaching the executives exporting techniques with relevance to the United States market.
Secondly, I should like my hon. Friend to consider whether it might not have been wiser to send potential teachers of marketing to the United States. A one-year course for potential teachers in the United States might have been run as cheaply as £1,000 per head or a little more, which was the cost of the course for each executive. In 1966 we sent about 12 potential teachers to the United States. I suggest that we should be aiming at sending at least 25 each year if we are to fill the vacancies and to staff adequately our technical colleges and colleges of advanced technology in this direction.
One can be sure that a potential teacher sent to the United States and returning here to teach the subject in an institution of higher education would serve the national interest alone and not partly or primarily the competitive interest of his own company.
Further, at this stage in our history, particularly in view of the possibility that our relations with Europe may become closer, perhaps we should be looking a little more closely at the European market. A body called the International Marketing Programme was also running a course this summer, but in England, at Sussex University. It ran it very successfully in 1965 with professors from Harvard and this year the course had a similar pattern, calling in North American professors and having a European


emphasis in terms of the markets at which it was aiming.
The brochure for the course was distributed on 22nd March and it was sent to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 11th March, yet the Harvard course was announced on 23rd March, the day after the brochure for the English course was issued. At that point, recruitment for the Sussex course began to dry up. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that perhaps a subsidy was needed to provide for this course here, not least in view of the fact that some American Government money did help to ensure that the course was eventually run.
It is worth bearing in mind that Slough Technical College, at a rather lower level, this year was also trying to arrange an eight-weeks' course, four weeks in Great Britain and four in the United States, specifically in export marketing in the American market, but here there was no grant from the Board of Trade through the British National Export Council despite the fact that the colleee had sent one of its teachers on a three weeks' course in the United States in order to help him in the running of the course this year.
There are many other domestic courses which might have served as a substitute for the American course, and it was not suprising that The Times on 24th June said:
The pending departure of 15 senior executives to Harvard Business School, thanks to a Government grant of £25,000, is a slap in the face that will rankle with these teachers (of marketing) for a long time. … One of the restricting factors in marketing teaching in this country is shortage of money. When Government grants go overseas in this way there is an obvious need for better consultative arrangements between Government departments and teachers.
I turn now to the teachers specifically. I have already said that some of the technical colleges are inadequately staffed, and, alas, most of the teachers in technical colleges are not sufficiently highly trained in the skills which they are themselves teaching. We need a crash programme in teaching marketing and management teachers here and in the United States and in Europe, particularly in Switzerland. Here I would suggest that a heavy Government investment is

needed. Without the teachers we cannot make progress.
One further point with regard to teachers, namely, their salaries. This is a constant grouse, perhaps, of people in all disciplines in centres of higher education, but here in particular it is worth noting that present teachers, in short supply as they are, continually receive offers of up to twice the salary they receive in universities from industrial concerns, and, of course, there is a danger here that if they seek additional income from industrial consultancy the real cost to the nation in terms of research not done will be very high indeed.
One further point. We may also, I would suggest, need far more research assistants than can at present be provided from public funds. If successful work is to be done in this field teams of research assistants are needed, not necessarily of graduate level, but people of ordinary national certificate or diploma level; but here one must have funds, because otherwise one knows the department has the choice between a lecturer or a team of research assistants. One cannot have both.
So much, then, for the teachers. Now to come to the other end of the scale, the students. In this field the background of students, especially of postgraduate and post-experience courses, is different from that of those in most academic disciplines in higher education. Let us look, for instance, at acceptances for courses in 1966–67 of one former college of advanced technology. For the marketing course, 69 per cent. of them had a social science background, 4 per cent. an arts background, 37 per cent. a pure science background. That is to say, their academic backgrounds were from all over the spectrum. So one runs into great difficulties.
One university has 27 marketing students this year. Two of them are there on S.S.R.C. grants, one has a Scottish Department of Agriculture grant, three have L.E.A. grants, seven are from overseas, and four are sponsored by United Kingdom companies. Ten are doing the course on their own savings and have no visible means of support because they have not yet found an industrial concern to sponsor them. The cost to each student doing this on his savings is, perhaps, £500 a year. These


are all people of the age range 21 to 34. So £500, in terms of savings, is a considerable amount to ask them to spend to make themselves better managers.
There is a further need for finance not least because we must be providing finance for people who for their first degrees may have gained only lower second or third-class ones. What is just as important is the experience they have subsequently gained.
Finally, I have a word about the organisation of management and marketing studies in this country. We need a general co-ordinating body, especially for the courses at technical colleges, where the standards are mixed, the aims are confused, the status is often low—not necessarily correctly so—and many of the staff are insufficiently trained. We need such a body to set long-term aims and to co-ordinate research. Where teachers are scarce and funds are not as forthcoming as they might be, we cannot afford duplication or triplication of research.
At present the British Institute of Management, the United Kingdom Advisory Council for Education in Management, the Foundation for Management Education, the U.G.C., the National Advisory Council for Training in Industry and many other bodies are interested, and we want one major co-ordinating body.
A further question that arises in this context is whether management training is an allowable expense under the Industrial Training Act, 1964. It arises in this context because the industry training boards vary in practice, and some confusion has arisen in the centres of higher education. The boards might well channel information on die courses they allow through such a co-ordinating body as I have suggested to the universities and technical colleges. Equally, they might channel information about what they would like courses to include.
The "little Neddies" might be of assistance. They could be used to gather information from industry about what research is needed, particularly in marketing and, above all, in industrial marketing as opposed to consumer marketing. It is very difficult to draw up sensible programmes of research when there is ignorance about what the needs of industry are. We could have the "little Neddies" channelling through the

central co-ordinating body to the universities and technical colleges the needs of industry in research. Equally, they might be used to disseminate the results of such research to industry. This would be one way of tying academic research in with the needs of industry, which here are the needs of the nation. We need a coherent development with the necessary funds provided. If we do not do this we shall be jeopardising the future of the British economy.

4.4 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) has special knowledge and experience in this matter, as his speech so clearly proved. In view of the time at my disposal—a very few minutes—I am sure he will forgive me if I try to deal with only a few of the more important points that he has raised, but I can assure him that fullest consideration will be given to all that he has said.
He asked what provision we are making for management education, and emphasised the importance of marketing. In the university sector during the academic year 1965–66 some 26 universities and equivalent 'institutions provided 19 undergraduate courses, 58 postgraduate courses and 66 short post-experience courses, undoubtedly a marked improvement on previous years.
In the further education section, in which my hon. Friend is particularly interested, since the revised postgraduate diploma in management studies was introduced in 1961 there has been a very substantial increase in the number of students enrolled, from 1,153 in 1961 to 3,851 last year. I expect that enrolments this session will top the 4,000 mark.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the two business schools at London and Manchester. Both those schools have made a very encouraging start. I have details here which I will give later to my hon. Friend about the increase in the provision at both schools. Suffice it to say in this connection that, although both have started in temporary premises, they are expanding this year at all levels, and particularly on the lines which my hon. Friend indicated. The London school has


now acquired a permanent site, and no doubt that will set a signal for its further progress.
The numbers at both schools compare very favourably with the numbers forecast in the Normanbrook Report, which presaged the foundation of these two major schools, and that growth could not have been achieved without adequate staff. It is very gratifying that both these important schools have been able to attract staff of very high quality.
Passing to one or two other important points that my hon. Friend raised, he mentioned the question of assisting students financially to attend the British-American course on marketing at Harvard this year. Whatever may be the position in the future—and it is certainly our intention that there should be comprehensive facilities in this country for education in management at all levels in all facets of the subject—the Harvard scheme seemed the most suitable in all the circumstances of last summer. It consisted of a six-week course at the Harvard Business School, followed by a four-week tour of American industrial organisations to study business in action. The course, which was a great success, was intended to generate a greater understanding of marketing skills on both sides of the Atlantic. It was intended to and did provide a nucleus of marketing-oriented top executives and to supplement the efforts of our own business schools and other institutions in carrying out advanced marketing training.
The marketing course held this summer at Sussex University was not a university course, but one run by a non-profit-making organisation, International Marketing Programmes Limited, which used the university facilities as a conference centre on payment of an economic rent. The cost to employers of sending students on the I.M.P. course was less than the cost of sending them to Harvard, even after taking account of Board of Trade subsidies, so its terms were not uncompetitive. But I shall certainly bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the points made by my hon. Friend about such courses, and I take particular note of what he has said about the course now being organised by the Slough Technical College.
My hon. Friend rightly stressed the importance of qualified teaching staff for management courses at all levels. There are several different routes by which people can become teachers of business management subjects. There is the normal method by which teachers of all subjects are produced, and my hon. Friend is a distinguished example of the normal route to the teaching of this discipline. In addition, some people with a mixture of academic qualification and business experience have been drawn into the teaching of management subjects. The directors of the two business schools at London and Manchester fall into this category.
In order to encourage a continued flow of recruits from this source, the Foundation for Management Education has established 12 teacher fellowships at universities in this country. These fellowships enable people with experience in business who feel that they have an inclination to teach to spend two years on advanced studies. Another special arrangement which the Foundation has made in this field is the establishment of one-year fellowships in the United States. These are for promising students who intend to return to the United Kingdom to teach in business schools or elsewhere. Since 1964, the Regent Street Polytechnic has been running each term a 10-week full-time course for prospective teachers of management subjects.
I have no time to go into the important question of research and research assistance.
Although diploma work is perhaps the most striking aspect of further education college contribution to management education, it must not be overlooked that in addition to the diploma courses, which are in any event found in about one in five of the colleges offering management courses, the colleges offer a very wide range of management and business courses at other levels, ranging from courses leading to recognised qualifications in foremanship and supervision to those for specialised qualifications in such fields as works and personnel or office management, and of course assistantships of the type which my hon. Friend rightly stressed and described.
Perhaps I might just mention one practical point which my hon. Friend raised. He asked whether management courses


are an allowable expense under the Industrial Training Act of 1964. The answer is that they are, but it is for the individual training boards to decide which courses to accept for grant purposes. Most boards have set up working parties or committees to make recommendations on the training and educational programmes appropriate for management in their industries.
In addition, the Central Training Council has set up a management training and development committee to recommend to the Council what guidance should be given to boards on the training of managers, an occupation which is common to all industrial training boards. This committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Joseph Hunt, has a wide membership representing both sides of industry—the British Institute of Management, the

boards themselves, and also the universities and technical colleges. This overlap of membership between the special committee on the one hand, and the universities and the technical colleges on the other, leads to a correlation of all courses in the educational institutes and also the requirements of the industrial boards.
As I said earlier, I shall certainly bear in mind all the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend. They will be considered most carefully, and indeed I hope to give by letter certain information which I have not found time to give from this Box tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Four o'clock a.m.